I agree. But they added more explicit proof. And increased global awareness. It's the public (ie. the voters) that should be informed.
Also some people are slower than others are learning a certin lesson.
Also, to simply speak for myself, I have learned things that I didn't know, that will change the way i act/vote in the future.
I see it. To suspect, and to know are different. There is also a difference that some government people konws something, and that everyone knows it.
I don't see it necessarily as a "fight" as I see it as part of development. Sure, wikileaks seem to want to change the world indeed. But they do so without military weapons. And they don't just leak US secrets, their objective (as expressed by Assange himself) is to show that it's not a tenable situation to hide doubtful and immoral acts from the democratic system. And the point is that many of this doubtulf actions simply would not take place, if people understood that they can' be kept secret. One possible conclusion is that the price for keeping it secret at all cost will again WEAKEN democracy, not strenghten it. So the solution is not to secure all leaks, the solution is to make sure there are not explosive information to leak in the first place.
What I find most interesting in this, is to simply study WHICH lessons certain parties make from the given event and what their logic is. There are different conclusions one can draw as well. The question is which of them that is likely to lead to a better world for most people?
/Fredrik
