First post ever was going to be about Lawdog's fondness for short stories that usually end with a single gunshot, but today's news has been about Wikileaks posting gobs of what was considered secret stuff. Might as well jump in with both feet...
I'm generally of two minds. I think in a democracy secrets should be pretty rare. Most of the time they exist simply to keep people from being embarrassed, and I think we should trust the public to react in a mature way. Can't say I've ever feared for the Republic on the breaking of some huge secret.
On the other hand, if you don't like policy you should quit. Write letters to the editor, join a protest group, campaign for the politician who promises sunlight, etc. If you feel the Nation is in danger unless you leak, then you should do so publicly. You're not important man! Throw open those doors!
I guess it's the methods that bother me. Any policy based on hypocrisy is off to a bad start.
Q: So you believe in leaking secrets?
Q: So who is the leaker?
A: That's a secret...
What is interesting to me about all this is that apparently amongst the treasure trove is information that the Iranians are giving the Taliban a hand. Yeah I know, no big deal. Still, has anyone over there really thought about this? Wikileaks just gave ironclad proof of Iranian malfeasance! One is led to the conclusion that: a) Wikileaks is honest about what it posts, no selective releases based on content, b) it's really a CIA front, c) it's so focused on making America look bad, it overlooks evidence that might give the attack Iran crowd a boost.
I used to run into c) a lot back when I frequented a certain political message board. Someone would post that the Pacific War was forced on Japan because of American policy. That would be my cue, so I would jump in and announce that the poster had just justified America's blood for oil campaign. You could feel the brains locking up. Good days.