Here's the thing. You're making a secrecy argument that doesn't apply to the Wikileaks story. They have nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act or the TSA? They have to do with diplomatic communications that can — well, will — damage our relationships with friends and enemies and make us less safe and secure. You say you have a right to those conversations. You're wrong. You don't, not any more than you have the right to nuclear codes or secret service plans or military maneuver information. Some conversations are secret because they must remain to in order for them to be effective. What Wikileaks has done is ensure that our top diplomatic officials won't get honest and candid opinions from personnel in the field. That is unequivocally bad for our country.

1) TSA isn't putting their hands up your pants because they have secret intelligence. They're doing it because they'd rather frisk everyone than gather that intelligence and apply it in an intelligent manner.
2) The provisions of the PATRIOT Act aren't at all secret. In fact, we've been debating them for years now. Wikileaks' craven actions do nothing to change that law even a little bit.
3) Do you really believe we are better off now that our diplomats know that they can't give their candid impressions of our friends and enemies to their superiors without those impressions being splattered all over the front page of a dozen newspapers? You and I both know that effective diplomacy relies on thousands of conversations we should never see in public. That's no different than many aspects of our lives, if you think about it. We must be able to have candid private conversations in order to make the public decisions that ensure our nation's strength and security.
4) What rights, exactly, have been infringed upon that Wikileaks has attempted to address? I've not seen a single one and I don't think you have either.