That's a good question and I am not 100% sure where I would personally/morally draw the line. I think the conversation would be much different if all that were released was the evidence of what people consider to be a war crime. However, there was a lot more than that released than just that. Whether A (benefit to society) is greater than B (risk/damage) is always a hard distinction to make and up for significant discussion/analysis.
> That's a good question and I am not 100% sure where I would personally/morally draw the line.
What benefits or harms a country is orthogonal to what is factual. Any law that claims a moral high ground in protecting facts from being publicized, is used as a club to suppress speech. That is the moral issue, not some misguided idea that you are beholden to where and when you were born over reality to make statements. When you chase people after the fact (information is already published), you're doubling the moral insult. This isn't he ruin of the US, so it's transparently a petty vendetta.
There are practical problems (like state secrets in larger war games, ie Game Theory), which countries have historically forgone any nuance for the club, in the interest of expediency and simplicity. This isn't so complicated. Everyone understands. This is not a justification for totalitarian behavior, regardless of how dressed up the process is.
The Abu Ghraib whistleblower(s?) revelations certainly diminished the USA's reputation internationally, so weren't they, too, "furthering your adversaries'interests"?
