Decades ago I worked in the British civil service. I remember a colleague once got into trouble when security guards, patrolling the office one night, found he had left a secret paper on his desk. To be exact it was a single empty page -- a blank continuation sheet, stamped "secret". The guards, following procedure, had recorded a "breach", and sealed the room. (The stray page was not from a document about biological weapons or terrorist cells, by the way. It had fallen out of a note about monetary aggregates, or some dull thing. Even the pages it belonged with, the ones with text on them, said nothing sensitive.)
Governments are so routinely intent on withholding information that one wants to cheer whenever somebody leaks a stash of material. But I had mixed feelings about the WikiLeaks archive from the beginning, and nothing I have read in it or about it has made me feel any more comfortable.
To begin with, WikiLeaks is not very good at explaining itself. Julian Assange is opposed to (almost?) all official secrets. Unless you believe there is no such thing as a threat to national security, that is a difficult position to defend -- but it does have an appealing innocence. The problem is, WikiLeaks isn't innocent. It is not a disinterested conduit for information. The "Collateral Murder" video, its previous hit, was edited to heighten the drama, and given a sensational title. The aim was not mere disclosure but impact. I think that material did belong in the public domain: disturbed as I was to read that the thing had been edited, it was something that people needed to see. But WikiLeaks is not just acting as a channel for any and all improperly suppressed information. It has axes to grind. That calls into question its judgment about what can properly be made public and how.