you're wrong.

The messenger had a responsibility with the information they received. They willingly gave out the information with no regard for the people in the documents.

The difference between Wikleaks and the actual person that leaked the information is that Wikileaks has a large audience.

They could have removed names, but didn't. Now the blood is on their hands.

Right. So seeing a questionable video involving a few asshole US soldiers means that it's perfectly okay for hundreds more to die needlessly.

what the hell kind of reasoning is that?

I understand your point, but isn't the idea to be better? It's hard to argue that information should be free when the direct results of this will be human casualties. I mean, that's how it is being played and will be played.

Note, I'm speaking literally when I say "hard to argue". I think it's the correct ideal and I think our government could use doses of unexpected transparency but it's the Fox News I'm thinking about.

"Why take the chance?" is just fearmongering, not a rational argument. Every time you get in a car, you could cause numerous deaths. Why take the chance? Giving the government the chance to redact is a much greater precaution than any of us take when operating deadly machinery. The question is why the government, which was in a position to know their sensitive nature, didn't blank out all the names.