Wikileaks isn’t a “whistle-blower”

It is a sloppy disgrace for the CBC to describe the release of a hundreds of thousands of classified documents as whistle-blowing—a legal, often noble activity. Click on: http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2010/10/28/could-wikileaks-have-prevented-911/

Here’s how Wikipedia itself defines whistle-blowing:

A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about alleged wrongdoing occurring in an organization or body of people. Usually this person would be from that same organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).

Click on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower

Rude language in confidential communications between officials isn’t a crime and, kept in private, is of no harm.

Has the CBC any basis to suggest that what was exposed by Wikileaks was illegal activity by American officials? Are diplomacy and intelligence not legitimate activities of government?  Has WikiLeaks got its hands on evidence of thousands of crimes by the American government?

If it was “whistle-blowing,” logically the CBC must believe that the United States is, after all, an evil empire.