Thanks for your response. I went and looked at the press release: is this what you refer to? [1] a) and c) such informants were by definition in contact at som

Thanks for your response. I went and looked at the press release: is this what you refer to? [1] a) and c) such informants were by definition in contact at some stage. It would be trivial to state which, if any, informants had gone to ground, or disappeared. Or even a number or percentage. I don't think that's unrealistic, and I don't think it would have put them in any more danger. It's quite within the power of the US administration to give more info than they have, particularly useful to them securing the most serious possible conviction for Manning. b) Common sense would then indicate they would announce such to deter other informants. I agree that it is not relevant, I think I saw the clip in some documentary [2] However he's denied it, and it was Leigh who provided the account. So even with a shaky premise, that it was all Assange's fault, there seems to be a lack of evidence of anything resulting from it. That's what I'm bothered by. There's plenty of powerful organisations involved who could point to the bodies, and yet none have to my knowledge. [1] http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/taliban-study-wikileaks-to-hunt-informants/?_r=0 http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/taliban-study-wi... [2] http://www.dailytech.com/Wikileaks+Assange+on+US+Informants+in+Afghanistan+They+Deserve+to+Die/article21724.htm http://www.dailytech.com/Wikileaks+Assange+on+US+Informants+...