Originally Posted by
farscott
I agree it is complex, but I also see the flip side of your argument. Namely, lots of things that should not be classified are classified so that "Joe and Jane Sixpack" cannot learn about them. Not because of national security, but because the people in power want to project their view of the world and do not want evidence of contradictory views to be in public to drive/shift the narrative. And your questions about whether the data is valid are good ones, but they should also apply to what our elected officials tell us. Classifying information is a powerful tool because it limits the transfer of that information. And many things need to be classified, such as weapons specs and plans to deal with various crises. But I think you would agree that many things that have been classified are classified only to help those in power reach their own goals, goals that may not be in the best interest of the country. And, on the flip side, we see how some of those people in power treat classified information, either with contempt (Secretary Clinton) or a means to bed a woman (General Petraeus).
I also am not sure if Julian Assange is a modern Carl Bernstein/Bob Woodward or if he is just a crook. Whatever he is, he does not seem to motivated by money or power in the sense of control. For that reason, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
And no doubt that this is one Gordian Knot, writ large.