I think an exposition of a state's right to secrecy in regards to national security and diplomacy would have been helpful, as that's the area to which most of Wikileaks' criticisms are addressed. Specifically, I would like to hear what information a government or military:
a) Should keep secret (troop movements, etc)
b) May keep secret (?)
c) May not keep secret (abuses, human rights violations, etc)
Furthermore, I would like to see similar answers in regards to international diplomacy. A "horse's mouth" statement on the matter would go a long way towards alleviating confusion.
I don't think the question of what should be open vs secret is a very interesting debate, because the bulk of that answer is largely agreed upon. I think the more interesting discussion is answering this problem: How can a government have the ability to keep secret those things that are necessary, in a way that disallows (or minimizes) the ability to abuse that power to keep other things secret as well?
I agree that having an explicit statement that there may exist military and diplomatic secrets that are legitimate would help convince the people (like myself) who think his positions are too extreme to be useful.
"In some cases – tracking down organized crime, say – government officials have an obligation to keep their investigations secret at the moment that they are performing them." -- Julian Assange, in the linked article
Seems like a straightforward statement that he believes there are legitimate secrets for a state to keep, at least temporarily.
The problem is that there is not, and frankly can not be a fixed definition of any of that. We may well all have a common understanding that we all agree is moral and lawful, but the second it makes a government uncomfortable its will suddenly get redefined.
There is a curious thing that happens with language and government. They make up new words or redefine current words to mean what ever their agenda is. For an unrelated example, WMD used to be nukes only, and austerity measures is the new word for cuts. Remember when things needed money? Its resources now.
a) Should keep secret (troop movements, etc)
b) May keep secret (?)
c) May not keep secret (abuses, human rights violations, etc)
Furthermore, I would like to see similar answers in regards to international diplomacy. A "horse's mouth" statement on the matter would go a long way towards alleviating confusion.