that they have multiple sources and receive information regularly, so they claim...and apparently they dont know who the source is. can it be?

What can you tell us about the source?
We know from looking at this material, correlating it with public records and talking to military sources that this material is true and accurate. As to the specific source, obviously we can't comment.

There's been publicity about Bradley Manning, a military officer, who claims to be a source for Wikileaks. What can you say about him?
We have a number of military sources, including ones before Manning joined the army.

Do you know who the source is?
No, we don't know who the source is.

So how does Wikileaks work?
So other journalists try to verify sources. We don't do that, we verify documents. We don't care where it came from - but we can guess that it probably came from somewhere in the US military or the US government, from someone who is disaffected. Clearly, a heroic act by the whistleblower.

So the same computer system that protects the source also stops you from knowing that source?
The system we have deployed to make whistleblowers to us untraceable, also prevents us knowing who they are.

Whoever it is, the US military will regard him as a traitor.
Well, we can't speak for the decision of the US military in this case, but it's clear there are a number of people in the US military who have a view that abuses should not occur in war, and we have a number of sources revealing these abuses everyday. It's one of the optimistic things in the course of this war that there is dissent and that there are well intentioned people in the US military.
http://www.channel4.com/news/article...ls+all/3723392