Please read the sibling comments. I'm more than happy to see information about the US's disastrous and criminal programs exposed. But that doesn't mean that I uncritically accept that an unbiased source does itself have unbiased sources.

Except you're spreading FUD about a huge trove of information without any specific reference to how or why the information is suspect. The only actual reasons you mention as to why this information is untrustworthy is that it's hurtful to US government agencies.

> The only actual reasons you mention as to why this information is untrustworthy is that it's hurtful to US government agencies.

I said "liberal democracy," not "US government agencies." I also don't think the information itself is suspect. Please read the surrounding (very good) discussion around the difference between information and intelligence.

> I said "liberal democracy," not "US government agencies." I also don't think the information itself is suspect.

So, how does exposing high-level corruption, war crimes, mass surveillance, etc. lead to a 'decline of liberal democracy'? Unless you mean 'exposing the ways in which our society is not a liberal democracy leads to the decline of the illusion of liberal democracy'?