The short answer is that it is not helpful.
Cablegate: 250,000 US Embassy Diplomatic Cables
2010-11-28
On Sunday 28th Novembre 2010, Wikileaks began publishing 251,287 leaked United States embassy cables, the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public domain. The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into the US Government’s foreign activities.
The above is from the Wikileaks website and if you are interested, the link goes right to the release page.
There are two words that jump out at me in the above paragraph, “leaked” and “confidential.” Either of these words tell you that somebody has rather low moral values in releasing these documents. No doubt they believe they are on a quest to save humanity from the US, but it is hard to understand what good comes from all this, while the potential for varying levels of harm is real. US papers that print portions of the leaked material even while claiming to edit it to preserve our security are in reality lending credibility to such actions. The purpatrator is an anarchist and was raised by an anarchist, it’s that simple. His delusional view of the world is one without authority or central governments.
Why is anyone shocked at what they read about US diplomacy, isn’t this what we expect our government to be doing, to gather as much information on the people we deal with as possible? Isn’t this what any astute person negotiating an agreement does?
I wonder what the result would be if the same material were released, but the words read “insight into the Chinese Government’s foreign activities,” or perhaps Russia, or Iran, or any other less open society?
There are many people who probably see this guy as a hero, I am not one of them. Think what might happen if every e-mail or text you ever sent suddenly found its way on the internet., oops!
There are people in this world, who have such idealistic high-minded motives that their view is clouded from the realities of human behavior. Sure we should strive to make things better for all of mankind and it would be hard to argue that we have not made progress or that we have a way to go. But those who pursue these goals through destruction are not in the forefront of progress.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 