> So your understanding is that it's true that people died as a result of Manning's leaks?
No. If someone has died as a result of the leaks, it is very unlikely we would ever discover that. When, say, the Taliban kills someone, they generally don't leave a thank you note for whomever provided them the information to identify the target.
Asking for specific names is as pointless as asking for specific hurricanes made worse by climate change, or for specific lung cancer fatalities whose lung cancer was caused by cigarette smoking.
The only way to access the damage, if any, from the leaks is probabilistically. That's the same way we know climate change has caused increased hurricane damage, and the same way we know cigarettes have killed people.
If discussion now goes the way it usually does, the above two paragraphs are going to be interpreted by many as me claiming that cigarettes have never killed anyone. :-(
There's a fairly large incentive for the US military / intelligence and its supporters to demonstrate that the leaks have killed people, or otherwise caused damage. If there were casualties, wouldn't we have heard about them by now?
Of course, I could be wrong, and there have been, but in operations which are classified, but I suspect that it's unlikely that there have only been casualties which are classified.
My point was that when someone is targeted by groups like the Taliban, we (the non-Taliban) generally don't find out HOW that group found out about that person.
For instance, suppose someone is killed for providing education to girls, and suppose that person's name and activities were mentioned in a leak. We couldn't conclude that the Taliban killed him because of the leak. Maybe a Taliban sympathizer reported the person. Maybe one of the girls unwisely spoke in public about how great it was to be learning, and a Taliban member overheard and followed to find out who was teaching girls.
At the same time, there's an obvious research project that would bring clarity to this question, which either has not been done (I doubt this) or has not unearthed any evidence that the leaks killed anyone (my suspicion).
That is, compile a list of people's names included in the documents that were publicly released, and see who among them are dead. Among those, see if any could have been specifically targeted (e.g., a minister mentioned in a diplomatic cable who dies of cancer was obviously not; an Afghan educator who was assassinated probably was targeted). Among the potentially-targeted dead, see if there are any who were exposed by Manning's documents (instead of already being publicly-known for their activities.
If were are any names left at the end of that funnel, they would have been hugely valuable to the US government.
Either no one has done this research, or it came out with no results, or there's some other reason the results can't be revealed unknown to me.
No. If someone has died as a result of the leaks, it is very unlikely we would ever discover that. When, say, the Taliban kills someone, they generally don't leave a thank you note for whomever provided them the information to identify the target.
Asking for specific names is as pointless as asking for specific hurricanes made worse by climate change, or for specific lung cancer fatalities whose lung cancer was caused by cigarette smoking.
The only way to access the damage, if any, from the leaks is probabilistically. That's the same way we know climate change has caused increased hurricane damage, and the same way we know cigarettes have killed people.
If discussion now goes the way it usually does, the above two paragraphs are going to be interpreted by many as me claiming that cigarettes have never killed anyone. :-(