Leaving Mr. Assange aside, to whom I attribute no special values, I hold that Wikileaks can not be regarded in deterministic moral or ethical ways. It belongs to a category that does not exist. It is like presuming to know the answer to love, the number of decimals in a variable, the meaning of internet or in other words it is a phenomenon in the shape of a magic hole you put your stakes into and expect nothing, or everything. Different agents play their chances in this non-category for different ends, as it’s members are intrinsically repurposable.
Like all tools it was crafted by some other, for a purpose that can’t be known or trusted, but is also indefinately imitable for ends one can be more certain of.

For all we know (but do we care?) from what has been credibly argued these could be files of approximate, non- or dis-information and while people could very well be beheaded at this very moment as a result of them, we still struggle to determine the right denomination to prepend the word “information”. Is it Truth? Truth can only be known to exist in the private domain. The word fits only in the mouths of the distrusted.

Let us bemoan the numerous who think that they are served, let us chide the smith that we can’t curb. Or let us merit that which is not its purpose, but its virtue. And let us assume that the ones supposed to be purposed are not quite so easily humbled.

The videography of Apache gunships cannot lie as can the witness of man, nevertheless can it not be trusted, limited by the field of its view, the coarsness of its resolution and the smog of Baghdad. Let it remind us of what we can’t seem to remember, to gaze beyond what we are shown and told and further into the private domain of those that endear it, while assuming nothing of their motives, and judge them in no relative ways.