I'm sorry, I generally avoid snarky posts on HN, but that comment literally makes less sense to me than anything I've seen on HN is a long long time. Down vote me to -3000, I don't care, I can't let that one slide.

Do you think the nuclear launch codes should be published? (of course not right? who would do that?)

How about where are nuclear submarines are right at this very moment. (of course not, who would do that?)

Do you think George Washington should have written in the paper he was crossing the Delaware river on Christmas? This country has had secrets since before its inception!

Ok, I guess in your defense you emphasize the phrase wrongfully classified. Everyone agrees too many things are classified (though having a clearance, I was actually shocked how many things AREN'T classified that you would think should be). But lets say I agree on your premise that things that are wrongfully classified should be made available to the public. Who decides what is wrongfully classified? Wikileaks? The guy leaking it? You? I find it interesting that of the thousands of people who had access to these documents, over 99.9% of them thought they rightfully should remain hidden, and one guy disagreed and leaked them. This isn't 100,000 documents leaked by 50 people out of 80, it is 100,000 documents leaked by 1 guy out of thousands upon thousands.

So lets go to the official definitions of classified material to see if they were "wrongfully classified"

Top Secret (TS) The highest level of classification of material on a national level. Such material would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available.

i.e. your launch codes, orders, locations of troops, capabilities of weapons (things you and the people we are fighting don't even know we can do)

Secret Such material would cause "grave damage" to national security if it were publicly available.

Confidential Such material would cause "damage" or be "prejudicial" to national security if publicly available.

Restricted Such material would cause "undesirable effects" if publicly available.

I feel like the fact that the state department has spent the last week running around trying to clean up the diplomatic brush fires that have been caused by this prove that they were right to be classified in the first place. Should the cables have been classified as Top Secret - of course not. And thats why none of them were. Should they be restricted (i.e. noforn or distro d or something similar that says they are not to be released)? I think they rightfully should be. Nothing in the cables were above Secret, and most were simply restricted. They're not wrongfully classified when the definition of restricted is that it impedes your ability to do the job of the state department if leaked, which clearly this leak is doing right now.

My response will be relatively short, and I feel compelled to explain why.

You wrote thirteen paragraphs. The first two are rhetorical metadiscourse. The next three are implied arguments against a straw man. In the sixth paragraph you actually attempted to make an argument, it appears, but you only violently agreed with my point ("everyone agrees too many things are classified"). The next six paragraphs consist of irrelevant information probably copied and pasted. In the last paragraph alone do you make a claim which actually merits my response.

Your claim that the state department "spent the last week clean[ing] up...diplomatic brush fires" is completely unsubstantiated. I've seen little evidence that "cablegate" has caused anything more than mild embarrassment of government officials and a media bonanza.

Your only real contention worth a response is "[Documents are] not wrongfully classified when the definition of restricted is that it impedes your ability to do the job". Part of the government's job is explaining itself and its actions to its citizens: it reports to us, because it exists by our consent. Classification and secrecy exists not so the government won't be required to account for its actions, but in order to protect the lives of the citizens who consent to its existence. According to your interpretation of "restricted" the government should classify all potentially embarrassing information which might be construed negatively by the citizenry, and frankly, I don't think I need an argument to demonstrate the bankruptcy of that claim: given the usual incompetency of the government your principle, taken to its logical conclusion, would have the government classifying nearly everything.

I believe he spoke about wrongly classified materials. I should hope that neither he, nor anyone else, would think that nuclear launch codes were an example of something wrongly classified.