The fact is, if @xychelsea's leaks actually harmed any human beings, you would know their names. Instead there's just endless intimation.
-
-
Replying to @attackerman @xychelsea
I think there are some human rights activists named in those cables who would disagree.
3 replies 3 retweets 37 likes -
Replying to @charlie_simpson @xychelsea
at risk =/= harmed. No one disputes the leaks put ppl at risk. She was convicted & served her time. We're talking about post-release stigma.
8 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @attackerman
I'd still be interested to know how many of those named were arrested, imprisoned, or worse.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @charlie_simpson
it says a lot that you, and the rest of us, *don't know that.* If there was actual known harm, it would have been intro'd at trial or after
3 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @attackerman @charlie_simpson
Actually, talking to State friends who dealt w/this, they worked very hard to keep those names off the radar b/c fame = gov't repression.
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @MiekeEoyang @charlie_simpson
I can accept this, but then there has to be *some disclosure* of manifested harm. I deal w/redacted names & fudged specifics all the time.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attackerman @charlie_simpson
It's not "manifested harm" in a but-for causality sense. At the same time, trove so big, impact doesn't come in one clear factsheet.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
But instead of working so hard to defend position the Wikileaks dump had no harm, ask abt diplomats asked to curtail, dissidents protected.
2 replies 0 retweets 18 likes -
But the way you come into this debate, why would anyone think you'd hear them out on it fairly?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
By the same token shouldn't a "fair" assessment talk abt important things we learned from her?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.