US authorities have said the release may put people at risk. Is this true?i think wikileaks is misconstruing the potential dangers to the current leak. it's not that someone will be killed because of what is revealed in the leaked cables. it's that the leaks will damage the u.s. government's ability to engage in diplomacy in the future.
Wikileaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have released documents pertaining to over 100 countries. There is no report, including from the US Government, of any of our releases ever having caused harm to any individual. For this release we are releasing the documents in a gradual manner, reviewing them with the assistance of our media partners.
i'm often anti-secrecy when it comes to government. i think wikileaks is right that the u.s. often abuses its ability to hide information from the public and that a lot of good can be done just by shedding some light on stuff that people in power don't want to come out.
but i also think that secrecy is sometimes warranted. we want our diplomats to be able to have frank conversations with foreign leaders and to be able to send accurate accounts of what happens during these meetings to their superiors in washington. for that reason, diplomatic cables are justifiably kept out of the public eye.
so while it's unlikely that this leak will get anyone killed, it will damage the u.s.' ability to get stuff done internationally. now other countries have a major incentive to avoid dealing with the u.s., to lie to u.s. diplomats, or to serve them self-serving spins for fear that later their comments might some day end up on the wikileak site.
that being said, pete king is a moron. just because think the leak will cause harm doesn't make that leak a terrorist attack. believe it or not, the term "terrorist organization" has actual meaning that isn't just "an organization we don't like."
ADDING: what steve benen said:
Revealing secrets about crimes, abuses, and corruption obviously serves a larger good -- it shines a light on wrongdoing, leading (hopefully) to accountability, while creating an incentive for officials to play by the rules. Leaking diplomatic cables, however, is harder to understand -- the point seems to be to undermine American foreign policy, just for the sake of undermining American foreign policy. The role of whistleblowers has real value; dumping raw, secret diplomatic correspondence appears to be an exercise in pettiness and spite.
I've seen some suggestions that diplomats shouldn't write cables that they'd be embarrassed by later if they were made publicly. I find that unpersuasive. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in the nuances of on-the-ground international affairs, but I am comfortable with the notion of some diplomatic efforts being kept secret. Quiet negotiations between countries can lead, and have led, to worthwhile foreign policy agreements, advancing noble causes.
If the argument from the leakers is that there should be no such thing as private diplomacy, they'll need a better excuse to justify this kind of recklessness.
