I agree that the inclusion of Hammond and Kiriakou does a disservice to the article. Even Swartz gets little more than a cursory mention. Ludlow would have done

I agree that the inclusion of Hammond and Kiriakou does a disservice to the article. Even Swartz gets little more than a cursory mention. Ludlow would have done better to focus exclusively on Manning and Snowden. I suppose he couldn't help citing some of his favorite but lesser-known characters. But I don't think the author is trying to "thwart any effort to evaluate the impact of the leak as a whole". Maybe you're more familiar with the author's hidden agenda than I am, but this particular article just looks like an attempt to glorify Manning and Snowden's motivations without saying anything, whether positive or negative, about the consequences of their actions. It just isn't within the scope of the paper. I would love to read some well-reasoned and evidence-based analyses of the concrete consequences of Manning's and Snowden's leaks. But does every op-ed need to be so comprehensive and perfectly balanced? People who are concerned about the deadly consequences of recent leaks should write their own articles, I'd read them too. Even better if somebody posts a (nicely animated, responsive, HTML5, node.js-backed, CSS-only, etc.) infographic of excess deaths attributed to each leak. HN would love that! If the leakers are getting more public support than they deserve, it's only because their opponents have been unable (or unwilling) to publicize themselves effectively so far.