I disagree with every one of your points. I don't think this leak did a lot of damage. After reading through the memorandums, all I see is a bunch of meeting

I disagree with every one of your points. I don't think this leak did a lot of damage. After reading through the memorandums, all I see is a bunch of meeting minutes describing the routine actions that embassy personnel took. Very little of this should have been classified in the first place, and releasing this data is a good thing, in that it gives historians and researchers an inside look into how government personnel go about their day-to-day jobs, and how those day-to-day actions are affected by decisions made at the top. The government's reaction to the leak is doing far more damage than the leak itself. By trumping up the significance of the data released, the government is harming its own image in the eyes of its own citizens and the eyes of foreign leaders. >No politician would be brave enough to pass a law against a whistle blower that revealed important information for the public good. I think that's an incredibly naive world-view. Politicians work first and foremost to secure their own power. If a politician thought that their power base was under threat by a leak, they'd seek to stop the leak by any means necessary. We've already seen this reaction with the Pentagon Papers. There, the New York Times was definitely publishing something in the public interest, but the Defense Department worked to suppress it for exactly the same reason the State Department is working to suppress this publication. Finally, I question your standing to judge what the public interest is. The New York Times, The Guardian of London, and Reporters Without Borders all say that the leaked State Department memos are in the public interest.