While our military is free to make port calls, joint maneuvers, etc. with PRC?
Equating an organization whose stated philosophical goal is promoting government transparency with clandestine intelligence services is ridiculous.
With all that said:
I am simply saying that the military has an extremely valid operational reason for drastically cracking down on servicemembers communicating with organizations like (and including) Wikileaks. The military cannot reasonably leave it up to random servicemembers to determine whether, what, and how things should be leaked. It employes over 1.2 million people.
What I'm arguing --- and I don't assume you agree, but here's my argument --- is that the alternative policy of saying "by all means it is just fine for servicemembers to collaborate with Wikileaks so long as that collaboration doesn't violate any of our other regulations" is so clearly fraught as to be unreasonable.
Pretending people are upset about the existence of classification system is silly. The question is why an organization devoted to promoting government transparency and engaged in supposedly-protected free speech is getting officially classified using language which is used to justify (illegal and criminal) warrantless detention, torture and extra-judicial assassination.
It is entirely possible that the US military could restrict service members from subscribing to the New York Times or the Washington Post, but I don't see Bob Woodward or Tom Friedman getting described as an enemy of the American Republic.