On Wikileaks Part I

Democracy in America defends the dump:

I think we all understand that the work of even the most decent governments is made more difficult when they cannot be sure their communications will be read by those for whom they were not intended. That said, there is no reason to assume that the United States government is always up to good. To get at the value of WikiLeaks, I think it's important to distinguish between the government—the temporary, elected authors of national policy—and the state—the permanent bureaucratic and military apparatus superficially but not fully controlled by the reigning government. The careerists scattered about the world in America's intelligence agencies, military, and consular offices largely operate behind a veil of secrecy executing policy which is itself largely secret. American citizens mostly have no idea what they are doing, or whether what they are doing is working out well. The actually-existing structure and strategy of the American empire remains a near-total mystery to those who foot the bill and whose children fight its wars. And that is the way the elite of America's unelected permanent state, perhaps the most powerful class of people on Earth, like it.

I'm still a bit torn about it. Does Wikipedia serve a valuable purpose? I think so. I think it's important for people in government, or more specifically in the "state" as it's put above, to know that they will be held to account. Embarrassed if they deserve it, prosecuted if need be.

That said, I maintain that because Wikileaks is by definition agenda driven (as am I and all other political bloggers for that matter), it's critical to be very leery of what's being presented. A diplomatic cable discussing shady things in Pakistan may be very interesting for example. But it may be one of thousands discussing little of import.