I support what they are doing but I don't have full confidence in their leadership.

I really don't like the Assange case. Being a Swede it feels embarrassing to watch that spectacle. We are supposed to fight for human rights and democracy around the globe but in reality we can't even guarantee a fair trial. And there should be a trial because no one stands above the law, not even Assange, but it needs to be fair goddamnit. It's crystal clear that our government intends to be America's loyal dog here otherwise a guarantee for his safety should be a no-brainer.

You realise that your argument is digging you in an even deeper hole, right?

So can you explain Manning's motive on this? You have some kind of proof that he's running for office and looking to dig up dirt on Obama? If I want a transparent government, I'd want as much info out of it as possible, biased or not (of course, the government is going to release only info that will show them in a good light. Its the job of the press to report on the other side). Oh, and if Manning did it for some kind of personal gain, it didn't help, did it?

How about this: If you saw the government doing something that you would consider immoral, would you let others know about it? Or would you let the government continue on it's merry way, in fear that what you release will just be bias material? Sometimes whistleblowers are motivated on a moral basis. Why do you think Syrian/Libyan officers were defecting from their respective reigimes? Just for their own personal gain? Some people are deeply ashaed at some of their government's actions...

Oh, and originally you claimed that you're 100% against Wikileaks, but now you're claiming that they're "just an organisation" and that the people leaking it are to blame. Which part do you have a problem with, exactly?

Why swedish? xD

If I was involved in the government doing immoral things I would be a whistle blower, not an information leaker ...

While a whistle blower may only reveal one side of the story you can evaluate their motives, an information leaker remains annonymous and their motivations are kept secret. A whistle blower (typically) acts from a position of trying to do the right thing (because the act of speaking out generally destroys their career), while an information leaker typically acts for personal gain.

Given the way whistleblowers are treated nowadays, I'm not suprised why some do it anonymously. You have to understand that some people wish to show what a business/government is doing to which they consider immoral, but are afraid of the reprecussions that they will experience. Whistleblowers are subject to threats of violence or losing their job, and in the case of Manning, incarceration. So all the government did is promote further anonymous "leaking", not the non-anonymous whistleblowing that you trumpet, since they have shown what they do to people who whistleblow.

You can't just be for one form of whistleblowing and against another.

Once again, please tell me what personal gain is involved here.

Actually, I can be against whistleblowing and against the anonymous leaking of information ...

An accountant at a company (like Enron) coming forward with documentation that demonstrates that the company has been using illegal accounting practices to boost stock value is substantially different from electronic documents posted on a server somewhere by someone who claims to be an insider that supposedly demonstrate a company is using illegal accounting practices. One is someone who, at great personal cost, stood up for what they believed in to stop something illegal/immoral; the other could be an elaborate hoax designed to make someone substantial amounts of money by shorting the stock.

The hardship a whistleblower goes through is why they're trusted. If being a whistleblower was no big deal anyone with a bone to pick with their current employeer would become a whistleblower.

So in other words, whistleblowers should only come forward if they're sure that something is going to be done, regardless of blacklash such as workers angry that the whistleblower's actions caused their workplace to close down? In an ideal world, whistleblowing should endure no hardships at all, but then again, in an ideal world, there should be no need for whistleblowing.

You do realise that that kind of mentality is highly demotivational towards people who, under tremendous stress and possibly pressure, want to whistleblow but are afraid of such consequences? Allegations should come up from anyone at anytime, anonyous or not. Why do you think people are allowed to report crimes anonymously? Becuse every bit of information helps. This isn't a matter of what side it's from or what bias it gives. The point is that it's a potential one step closer to the truth.

You're treating the government like it's some kind of business. Tell me, where is this so called "government stock" that they were looking to short, and where can I buy some? Was this leaked near an election year? Did it favour ANY side, or was it just saying that the government in particular is doing bad? I'll ask once again: What were the personal gains of these people for the leaking of US diplomatic cables?

idk. I kinda get the Swedish vibe from the word "wiki."

You don't seem to understand how much there is to gain and lose from the government ...

There are elections and bills, the budgets of massive pseudo-governmental bodies, gigantic unions, and hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts to corporations that can be impacted by the release of sensitive information. The release of documents that suggest inappropriate dealings with Lockheed Martin would impact the $34 Billion in contracts they have, and this would produce substantial opportunity to make money for someone who was motivated.

You live in a country with a remarkably corrupt government that is full of rent-seeking special interest groups and you believe the bullshit you're fed that the "leaked" information is for ethical reasons rather than personal gain; and you foolishly believe these people remain anonymous because of the consequences, rather than the obvious reason that they can't continue to gain from the knowledge they leak if they don't continue to work in their current job.

Until you demand transparency from your government the only information you will get is information that someone decided to give you; which will (more often than not) be to suit their needs not yours.

Had the government been doing it's job and remaining transparent, there would not be these information voids looking to be exploited. Just another phase of the capitalist system, first in gets the payouts. There are businesses constantly doing backdoor deals with each other to gain stockmarket advantage every day, and you single out the ones giving out leaked information? At least leaked information is still information that the public did not previously know about. Should we dismiss all rape allegations on the basis that the accuser may have made it up for personal gain?

Which country are you talking about exactly? Both the US and Australia's media has been on the side of incarcerating Assange for the leaks, mainly because he has highlighted things that have shown that the media has been doing a pretty poor job at this time. And what was that about believing the bullshit being fed? Look around you; the ones defending Assange did not take it from any news source, they're all against him. They studied the situation logically. 

"Until you demand transparency from your government the only information you will get is information that someone decided to give you; which will (more often than not) be to suit their needs not yours."

If you believe that government, even after being demanded to, could ever offer 100% transparency, I have one word for you: Gullible. So who will be keeping watch to ensure this government who responds to demands actually does so effectively? Or when they promise to be transparent, are we just going to take their word for it? Once again, freedom of the press is there for that reason, and this shows that it works (when actual journalism occurs).