There will never, ever be an all seeing, all knowing, unimpeachably qualified expert panel - as people will always argue that your expert isn't 'expert' enough. Organisations that operate within the fringes of the law (such as Wikileaks) have to take each situation as it comes - there are no hard and fast rules. Now, when we're in a situation like the one we're in currently - fighting multiple wars that many consider illegal - it is even more imperative that those who fund said wars (practically everyone reading this post) should be given access to any and all information we can get our hands on - After all, ultimately it is us that could stop these wars right now if we really wanted to. To those arguing that the freedom of this information isn't worth the risk it may pose to troops currently stationed in hot zones, allow me to propose this hypothetical situation: What if tomorrow morning, highly sensitive and incredibly damning military information found its way to Wikileaks doorstep. This information was so sensitive that the worst case scenario happened - tragically a patrol was ambushed and over a dozen soldiers were killed. However, this information was so sensational that it caused a massive amount of controversy and public outcry, leading to further anti-war protests - but this time with much greater conviction. This leak becomes the catalyst which expedites our withdrawal from multiple front lines across the middle east. Hundreds of soldiers who would of otherwise been killed are now safely tucked up in bed back home. Thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis are now enjoying what's left of their war-torn country as opposed to becoming unidentified blood smears decorating collapsed buildings. Isn't ending a war worth those initial dozen lifes? War is hell anyway, so why not die for peace instead of for no reason at all? Far fetched? Possibly. But lesser things have changed the outcome of wars in the past.