If you don't get proof that someone died, you have to charge him with something other than contributing to someone's death. The other side can also do thought

If you don't get proof that someone died, you have to charge him with something other than contributing to someone's death. The other side can also do thought experiments bounded by "common sense." It's common sense that anyone who was an informant knew that their cover was blown and they got out of harms way ASAP. It's common sense that during the time before the release, when the US Gov was calling up foreign governments to let them know a bad leak was on the way, they also called up their informants. It's also worth noting that only an extremely small percentage of the content contained identifiable information. Most of it wasn't related to informants at all. Your claim that the odds are high that some are or will be killed from the leaks would be questionable at the time of release, and now that we have a few years of history, fails even a preponderance of evidence standard of proof. For such a serious claim, I personally feel that it warrants at least that.