If they did compromise, and declared friendly actors to be off-limits, then they'd be just another politically-driven organization. It's their lack of compromise that lends them credibility.
When they report on Rumsfeld et al ordering torture, it is more easily dismissed as partisan propaganda than when they also report on misdeeds by the Left.
Wikileaks' philosophy is that power structures tend towards corruption unless their dealings are made public. This is inherently apolitical, inasmuch as it does not target or support any political group. Read Assange's 2006 essay on conspiracy as a basis of government and its asymmetric susceptibility to leaks for an in-depth view of the philosophy that informs Wikileaks:
The essay I linked to appears to be incomplete, or is at least two drafts of an essay. I've googled for a complete version, but haven't found it. A link would be greatly appreciated.
When they report on Rumsfeld et al ordering torture, it is more easily dismissed as partisan propaganda than when they also report on misdeeds by the Left.
Wikileaks' philosophy is that power structures tend towards corruption unless their dealings are made public. This is inherently apolitical, inasmuch as it does not target or support any political group. Read Assange's 2006 essay on conspiracy as a basis of government and its asymmetric susceptibility to leaks for an in-depth view of the philosophy that informs Wikileaks:
http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf