I get the point Atrios is making here, but leaks really do exist in a grey area. Leaks that are vindictive, or that are trying to discredit someone based on irrelevant information are mostly bad, while those from whistle blowers are mostly not bad (not necessarily good, per se but not bad).
It's not easy to determine good from bad. Leaking about a politician having an affair is largely irrelevant, but if that politician is having an affair with someone who is the same [gender] while fighting against legislation that protects LGBTQ people, well, it kinda becomes relevant in that case. Leaks that endanger US operatives in foreign nations are bad, but what if those operatives are torturing and raping people in those locations? Even more, leaks that show the US doing bad things in general do endanger other Americans that are not doing that by association. This is why we have a court system.
It's not perfect, and there are some serious potential issues with the courts going forward, but it's the system we have. If someone does something nominally illegal (leaking classified docs) but there are extenuating circumstances (the docs are covering up war crimes) then a judge/jury can say whether breaking the law was ok. Or something.
Until you get to a court case all we have in the meantime is speculation which is very likely to be clouded by political priors. Maybe that means everyone is full of shit, or maybe (more likely) it means that distinguishing between full of shit and not is a fools errand, in which case it may as well be that everyone is full of shit.