Ha!

None of those questions matter any way! Let them leak whatever they want. Shit doesn't stick to the wall anymore. The 24/7 news cycle and the internet has allowed so much access to information, that we cant focus long enough to decide if we should act, or how we feel. There are no more burning torches.
Wiki Leaks could release reports that the british blew up the oil rig in the gulf on purpose, and that the washington state national guard has an official doctrine on shooting mexicans and black people before asking questions. the news would run, and people would be OUTRAGED until the next horrible thing popped up on their yahoo ticker bar, or msn homepage. Nobody would actually DO anything about it...
So you ask should there be limits, yeah there already are. Its the short attention span the world has developed in order to cope with knowing all things, in an instant, at any time.

I agree with Giller's point about the average attention span, though I think the people for whom the information might have the most deadly potential will pay attention to something like this long enough to get any useful information they can from it.

Aside from commentary on the relevance/irrelevance to different groups, my feelings on the leak in general are a wash. I believe in transparency and think there is very little our governments need to be doing behind our backs, but at the same time I recognize that there are in fact things that shouldn't be publicly disclosed. With this many documents and the motives of the people behind Wikileaks, I highly doubt they could have or even cared to draw any distinction. Even some of the more questionable things, of which the anti-war advocates would champion the disclosure, could have repercussions I hope they wouldn't want. For example, if some of the documents detailed civilian casualties, even intentional ones, by American soldiers in Iraq, and the disclosure prompts outrage and violence in Afghanistan, do you think that is a just or good result?

As I said, my feelings are mixed. Transparency is good, unintended consequences against an innocent party are bad, and both are banalities trotted out by their respective sides to defend their positions.

MGS2/4 Spoilers, YE BE WARNED


And that is why maybe Kojima and Co were on to something when they wrote MGS2 and MGS4. The Patriot AI was supposed to filter through the deluge of information that we as a society were needlessly consuming but not processing and create order.

Throughout the whole world not just the west, the news is sensationalized in order for people to consume then discard. There is so much crap out there people forget what happened only a few weeks before. News is literally that. New shit. With wikileaks people will forget about it as soon as it falls out of the news. How many of the people who heard about this on the tube went and read what was posted? Very few. They more than likely heard about it, formed a mindless opinion then moved on.

Such is society nowadays.

Edit: Just thinking about this, Socrates would be absolutely disgusted with society today more so than he was of his own in 400 BC. According to Plato in the Apologia, Socrates testified that when he wanted to learn about a certain trade he went to a tradesmen but instead of answering questions about that which they had mastered they instead chose to give their opinion on things in which they had no true mastery. In Socrates words, "they presumed to know everything when in reality they knew nothing. He concluded that since he had no pretensions about knowing he was thus the wisest man alive. Today everyone opens there mouth but I wonder how many actually speak with true wisdom and understanding.

Carry on.

I bought a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report.
I never read it.

I'm probably proving someone's point in this thread...