I'm satisfied that we at least understand each other's points - it's gratifying to have an Internet discussion where the two parties aren't simply talking past

I'm satisfied that we at least understand each other's points - it's gratifying to have an Internet discussion where the two parties aren't simply talking past each other. I am not arguing that option 3 will magically solve everything - it's very possible it may do more harm than good. However, I'm also not convinced that it should be unequivocally condemned, and the truth MAY be that we simply don't know how it will change things. Like I said at the beginning, I'm somewhere in the gray. I rarely like absolutes. There is one part of your argument that bothers me, though. On the one hand, you are fundamentally opposed to what WikiLeaks is doing because you feel they don't have a mandate for it, and a change in government policy should come from its own people, not be imposed from an external source (I could go on an obvious tangent here, but I'll stay on topic). On the other hand, you argue that WikiLeaks' actions will have a net negative effect because of heavy-handed government response, resulting in less openness and personal freedom. For me, the second point severely undermines the first. If you strongly feel that government should and can be controlled by its own people (and not external sources), then the people should be able to prevent an inappropriate government response that is against their interests. If, on the other hand, getting hit on the head with a big stick is an inevitable outcome to a crisis, then maybe you have to leave the door open to the possibility that certain changes can only be forced from the outside. It almost makes something like WikiLeaks seem necessary.