The source is not the person but where it comes from. When you know where it comes from you can look for the person or penetrator who has taken the data. For the policymakers and investigators it is also important to know where it comes from so they know what is the status of the information
"They look to me to be a dump from the theater SIGACTs database which is accessible by pretty much everyone in the theater. It's a mix of operational and low-level intel information - a kind of news ticker for the theater. As a result, a lot of the reports turn out to be wrong or incomplete. Therefore, the information contained in this should be taken with a huge grain of salt. We don't know which reports turned out to be accurate, which ones only provided part of the picture and which ones were flat-out wrong. Without additional sourcing it's impossible to look at this database and determine which category a particular report falls into.
this is why I only published some snippets of the hundreds of reports I went trough.
it did seem just status reports and hyperindividual impressions that could be the basis for analysis and further research but which are not research and analysis an sich. They are one of the hundreds of indicators in this 'information overloaded and addicted' (war) environment we live in and in which we don't seem to cope with our addiction (getting more information all the time) and the results of it (overload and confusion and fear of decisions and public opinion).
More is coming but as I have said Wikileaks is now with its back against the wall.
The rest of the reports has probably information that could lead to assassinations, attack positions and other sensitive information. It has asked the aid of the Pentagon to go through them and show the material that should not be possible (all of it they have said). When they want to do it themselves they have counted it would cost them around 700.000 dollars to do so (blackening names and other indicators in more than 15.000 reports). If they do it without that they could be sued by anyone who says that they have - even indirectly - been wronged by this publication. This is really the make or break for Wikileaks. If they publish it like this they can be sued for the next billion years out of existence. If they selfcensor themselves too much they will lose the credibility they need to get the necessary funding from the users.
The US administration will review its laws sheltering whistleblowers to include an exemption for websites like wikileaks from the process.
Generally I support wikileaks but I have enormous problems with the way this leak has been handled. I still find human lives much more important. That said it is clear from the individual reports from the soldiers on the field that they don't have enough support and material, that the Afghan forces are underpaid, undertrained and that their commanders or local or general leaders are sometimes corrupt or not trustworthy. And in their own reports they always report their enthusiasm and their dedication. But don't we always write like that about ourselves. We hardly say : I have messed up things.