The fact that they don't edit/omit parts of leaks also says nothing about which leaks they choose to publish.
That said, I think it's a valuable service, I just wish they remained an unbiased source of leaked information. Of course, journalism is rarely unbiased.
We know that Sadam did not have any WMDs. We know that Iraq didn't have or support terrorists. We know that our government knew these things before going to war. Being "anti" such a war isn't "bias". It's the only moral option. If someone reports on a murderer being convicted do they have an "anti-murder bias"?
So to have an argument (at least the good kind) here you would have to either (a) make the case that one of my "We know" statements is wrong or (b) make the case that there is some moral ambiguity given (a). If (a) holds then that means the US attacked a more-or-less random country (or worse, a specific country for reasons which we have to hide). I think one would have a rather large burden trying to prove that to be morally ambiguous.
Who exactly does not have an anti-war bias? Mass-murdering psychopaths? Insane dictators? Anyone who likes killing other people?
Calling that video "Collateral Murder" promotes their view that the airstrike was "murder", which is not clear.
I'm only saying they should present the information and leave their opinion out of it.
They do both. Feel free to take their complete source material and republish it with your own analysis. There is no other media organization in the world which gives you this opportunity.