I can think of lots of other things that are vital to US economic interests. I don't think they're particularly hard to find.
Of course, thinking that terrorists want to target these things is a mistake; terrorists are not an existential threat to any state, not unless they have the sympathy of the general public and are fighting an unpopular government. As such, military targets are some ways down the priority list. Terrorists want targets that generate a disproportionate reactionary effect on the population. A pipeline in the middle of nowhere may affect energy prices indirectly, but lacks the immediacy that makes the public demand an overreaction.
Al Qaeda and the likes are more interested in regime change in Saudi Arabia than anything else. Making the US out to be the Great Satan plays into that dialog, and therefore making the US overreact, vilify Muslims, and polarize the population is their goal.
Also don't forget the biggest terrorist attack prior to 9/11 against the US was not the previous (mostly failed) WTC attack, it was the two embassies in Africa (somewhat militarized considering every embassy has a wall and a detachment of marines) and prior to that the USS Cole. And a ways back we had the marine barracks in Beirut. Terrorists are not afraid of military targets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bomb...
I don't fully disagree with the remainder of your comment, but I would also say that it's not a trivial factor that the targets you listed also have something else in common: they're all U.S. targets that are local or relatively easy to get to locations. Another consideration is that those are all older attacks. More recent attacks around the globe to Western facilities have focused on non-military targets. Based upon the result of 9/11 (U.S. engaging full force), the non-military target has demonstrated to be more productive for them.
The goal you stated for terrorists is not mutually exclusive with attacking economic and military targets. Bin Laden himself said that his goal is to bankrupt the US and attacking those installations would make a pretty good target for achieving that.
The "bad guys" fail to act on this information and instead a group of newly informed (politicians|non-profit watchdogs|citizens|concerned corporations|supranational organizations) affect some change that reduces our reliance on such a small number of facilities.
Without this leak, a lot of very influential "good guys" might not know this danger even existed.
My point is that the "bad guys successfully act on this information" scenario is only one of many, not all of them bad.
I don't think that kind of reasoning is the best way to question peoples ability to think rationally.
There might be "bad things" in these leaks, but that the natural gas industry is important to Qatar and the US exports to Qatar is just as far from a secret there is. Even someone totally ignorant on Qatar as a country could find this out on wikipedia.
Economy of Qatar [1]:
Export goods > Liquefied Natural Gas
Import goods > Machinery and Transport Equipment
Main import partners > United States 13.3%
Qatar also has much larger security problems then "random unhappy people". For example to quote the congressional research report on Qatar[5]: "On March 19, 2005, an Egyptian national carried out a car bomb attack at a theater popular with Western expatriates on the outskirts of the capital city of Doha. [...] The suicide bomber was an engineer employed at Qatar Petroleum"
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Qatar [2] http://english.mofa.gov.qa/details.cfm?id=56 [3] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/wor... [4] http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot2_021106.html?_... [5] http://opencrs.com/document/RL31718/2008-01-24/
The leak to worry about is the priority. What is the difference between a super critical oil refininery and the average refinery? I bet the average terrorist niether knows or has the means to find this out, but now there is a hit list in their hand given to them by the leakers. Going back to my example, we knew we were under powerlines, but is this just some random line to a town or is it THE line to New York City. I didn't know and I didn't care, but this might help answer questions like that for people we don't need or want to be telling.
If that doesn't damage our national security, I really don't know what does.
A power line gets destroyed by terrorists, cutting power to NYC for 3 days as crews work to restore service.
Some member of the public or some journalist might ask "gee, why didn't they have someone guarding that power line if it was alone responsible for carrying power to a major city?"
The answer from officials would of course be: "Whoever did this attack was a fearsome mastermind and analyzed our grid to figure out which lines would do the most damage. Of course now we have the line guarded 24/7."
But the attack still happened. It was in all of the officials' best interest not to do anything prophylactic because they get more mileage out of making a show of dealing with things people are already scared of.
So I'd argue that thanks to the leak, we are all safer from the sort of misbehavior caused by the perverse incentives officials have toward these sorts of things.
How difficult would it be to plan an attack that would have significant consequences for a major city's infrastructure? The New Yorker ran a piece a few years ago on New York's water supply and how it's extremely vulnerable. Surely anyone who spent a few weeks studying the infrastructure of any city would be able to assess the vulnerabilities well enough to determine whether or not an attack made sense.
So given that there are already thousands of things which could reasonably have been determined to be good attack targets, the addition of a list of a few thousand more does not make terrorism any more likely, since there was nothing stopping anyone before.
What the leak does give us, however, is the ability to look at these pieces of infrastructure and evaluate whether anything has been done to secure them. If it hasn't then there is only one direction blame should flow.
The reality is that most terrorists seem to be fairly incompetent with meager resources. This kind of intelligence is actually really dangerous because it means someone can do a lot of damage without expertise or a lot of money.
The human rights are violated in some way anyway. Try running some country without it first and then complain. That's the imperfect nature of human relations.
The whole leaks action was immature, ego-driven, stupid and childish act.
stupidity in thinking that they will make the world better this way.
You just hit the nail on the head. This shouldn't surprise you. In wars of opinion, most people pick a side, and stick with it until the bitter end. Heck, there've even been front-page articles on HN about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_polarization
You are one of the rare people if you regularly allow yourself to switch.
I wonder what would have happened, had the US accepted to review the cables before the leak, as offered by WikiLeaks.
Also, on the whole;
You can't see how listing the facilities that the United States thinks are vital to national security in Qatar could possibly be a bad idea?
It's like once people pick their teams, they can't reconsider. They have to find rationalizations "oh, this isn't so bad" or "well now we know what the government is working on" - guess what? There's random unhappy people in Qatar who don't have the resources or skill to do their own recon and intelligence work. Wikileaks just delivered America's own intel/recon to them. This makes the world less safe. This is a bad thing.
I don't care what team you're on. This one is a bad thing. Shame on everyone who downvotes etherael for pointing out a really valid point. Stop the blind allegiance to the cause and think this one through critically. This is a bad thing.