I do think they did a more respectable job of releasing this information than they did with the Iraq Apache guncam footage. It's unedited, relatively unbiased, and they did go out of their way to redact specific irrelevant but potentially damaging information (names of Afghans). I think the involvement of "real journalists" probably helped a lot.

I agree. They showed a bit of discretion and also managed to provide a resource to established media outlets.

With this sort of collaboration, vetting, etc, I really think it's hard to make the case that Wikileaks is a bad thing. In this case it empowered/emboldened the NY Times to write a series of stories that never would have been written.

I did a few months ago, before the controversial Apache video. Still here. :)

Why would you be afraid?

The US appears to be close to declaring Assange a terrorist. Do I want to be documented as having donated to a terrorist organization? Not sure.

If pure journalism is declared a terrorist activity in your country, you've got bigger problems than appearing on a list of Wikileaks donors.