It's too bad no one accepted my challenge. But I was half expecting that. People are much too entangled in their personal dogfights. It seems like they prefer to lose themselves in details and trivilialities, instead of discussing the point this is all about: Freedom of information and who decides what the people are allowed to know?
It is a very hard question to answer. I could make for an interesting discussion, but the way you approached it (with the quote you pulled out) feels nearly like trolling. I don't think that was your intention, but in the end, either you support full disclosure or you agree with Hitler. Not the greatest of choices.
I will try to address the issue, though. As I have mentioned before, the US government, specifically, is created as an employee of the public, and has a responsibility to inform the public of its doings and change them if the majority says to do so. As a nation, though, we want to be as strong on the world stage as possible in all aspects. Just like companies hold product details secret so that their competitors do not get an upper hand (See Coca-Cola), there are some things that governments need to keep to themselves so that others do not have the same advantage. This is mostly relevant in the diplomacy and military aspects. When the govt contracts the development of a highly sophisticated aircraft, it is with the intent of retaining military supremacy. If the details of this aircraft are not kept secret, it leaves them open to be used by any other nation, friend or foe. It also allows those other nations to learn the weaknesses and gain an advantage on the battlefield. In diplomacy, it is often necessary to feign a friendly face for the sake of progress and peace. I'm certain China does not have a good reputation in the White House, but it is necessary to at least be polite in the public forum so that no party is offended. The US and China being at odds is not good for the world. What the WH discusses within itself in regards to China is useful if kept secret.
To keep details such as those mentioned, it is unfortunately necessary to hold them secret from the nation's citizens, for if the citizens know the secrets, then non-citizens can know, which means other nations can know. To this point, everything has been of my personal opinion, which can be debated. But now I will address the main question, who decides what is secret.
When we elect a President and congressmen, we do so with the understanding that these people are responsible, intelligent, and working towards what is best for us. As a representative democracy, we are putting our trust in these few so as to create a streamlined government process, and in doing so, we are indirectly giving up the opportunity to personally and directly affect the govt process. Essentially, we are giving these people to make decisions for us. Because of this, it would be logical to assume we are giving them the ability to determine what is necessary to keep secret and what isn't. If we do not like what is being kept secret, then it is our duty as citizens to vote somebody into office that will make the topic public, and bring to justice those who keep illegal/unethical/immoral acts/programs secret from us. This is obviously a problem because, if it is secret, how would we ever know about it? One answer is that it is a trust issue. We must hold some level of trust in politicians, otherwise we shouldn't vote for them. Another answer as that we have trust in our fellow citizens who do get involved in govt as hired workers, who make public things that should be public (whistle blowing).
This is where Wikileaks and Private Bradley Manning. They did exactly that, made public what [they thought] should be public. What should be the issue of focus is whether any of the information leaked was helpful for the public to know (does it affect our view on what the govt is doing) and whether any of the information is damaging for people outside the US to know (military strategy, internal diplomatic cables, etc). IMO, the majority of the leak is unnecessary, unhelpful, and perhaps slightly damaging. Is it getting anyone killed? Probably not. Is it hurting diplomatic talks? Possibly. I find the leak irresponsible on Wikileaks side partly because Wikileaks is not a US institution. It should be up to citizens of the US to determine what other US citizens need to know. Obviously outsiders won't care what comes to light, it doesn't affect them poorly. The same cannot be said for US citizens.
TL;DR We put out trust in politicians by voting for them, we should trust them to do the right thing until we do not think they are, and then we vote them out. I applaud anyone who lets the public know of any wrongdoings withing govt, but look down upon those who let confidential information known just for the sake of leaking it. Julian Assange is irresponsible, and Bradley Manning should be investigated and brought to court to be tried by a jury
of his peers.
.
?!
