Despite your clear emotional involvement in this issue, you've written quite a lot to say very little, Mr/s. Schultz. My response will be relatively short, and

Despite your clear emotional involvement in this issue, you've written quite a lot to say very little, Mr/s. Schultz. My response will be relatively short, and I feel compelled to explain why. You wrote thirteen paragraphs. The first two are rhetorical metadiscourse. The next three are implied arguments against a straw man. In the sixth paragraph you actually attempted to make an argument, it appears, but you only violently agreed with my point ("everyone agrees too many things are classified"). The next six paragraphs consist of irrelevant information probably copied and pasted. In the last paragraph alone do you make a claim which actually merits my response. Your claim that the state department "spent the last week clean[ing] up...diplomatic brush fires" is completely unsubstantiated. I've seen little evidence that "cablegate" has caused anything more than mild embarrassment of government officials and a media bonanza. Your only real contention worth a response is "[Documents are] not wrongfully classified when the definition of restricted is that it impedes your ability to do the job". Part of the government's job is explaining itself and its actions to its citizens: it reports to us, because it exists by our consent. Classification and secrecy exists not so the government won't be required to account for its actions, but in order to protect the lives of the citizens who consent to its existence. According to your interpretation of "restricted" the government should classify all potentially embarrassing information which might be construed negatively by the citizenry, and frankly, I don't think I need an argument to demonstrate the bankruptcy of that claim: given the usual incompetency of the government your principle, taken to its logical conclusion, would have the government classifying nearly everything.