I take full responsibility The separate, but deeply entwined, stories of US Army private Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange have taken another step towards resolution. Having taken responsibility for his leaking of hundreds of thousands of secret military and diplomatic reports to WikiLeaks, Manning now faces the prospect of a long prison sentence. Assange's future is more uncertain. It is yet to be decided by his own choices, the decisions of prosecutors and courts in Sweden and perhaps the United States, and even possibly by Victorian voters in the September 14 federal election. Bradley Manning leaves the courthouse after his motion hearing in Fort Meade, Maryland, on Thursday. In a military court at Fort Meade, Maryland, Manning, 25, yesterday pled guilty to to wrongfully possessing classified military and diplomatic reports, communicating that information without authorisation to WikiLeaks, and that those actions were prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the US military. These offences could result in a prison sentence of up to 20 years. However, Manning did not plead guilty to stealing classified information, "exceeding" his authorised access on military computer systems, violating the US Espionage Act or "aiding the enemy." The WikiLeaks publisher remains at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, having been granted diplomatic asylum. The last offence is the most serious with Manning facing a potential life sentence if the charge is proved. In a long voluntary statement to the court, Manning asserted he had acted freely and in accordance with his conscience. He presented himself as a politically motivated whistleblower. He said the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan had become "obsessed with capturing or killing" insurgents while ignoring the impact of their operations on civilians in both countries. He argued that what later became known as the Afghan and Iraq war logs, huge databases of classified incident and tactical intelligence reports, were "not very sensitive" because they were largely "historical data." However he believed the material would show the public the "underground realities" of war. "I believed if the public ... had access to the information this could spark a debate about foreign policy in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan," Manning said. He hoped "to make the world a better place." Interestingly Manning said that he had approached two of the United States's most prominent newspapers - The Washington Post and then The New York Times, but neither was interested in the material he offered. In the end, in January 2010, he chose to send the material to WikiLeaks via the transparency website's confidential electronic drop box. No one associated with WLO [WikiLeaks organisation] pressured me into sending any more information. I take full responsibility. Manning is now expected to proceed to a full court martial on what US prosecutors call "the greater offences." The trial is scheduled to begin on June 3 and last twelve weeks. The prosecution has indicated it intends to call 141 witnesses, including 15 people who will testify that the information Manning passed to WikiLeaks damaged US national security. Major Ashden Fein, the leading prosecution counsel, told the court this week that four witnesses would be called whose testimony would have to be given anonymously and entirely behind closed doors, with only the judge, case lawyers and the defendant present. One of the four, designated is understood to be a US Navy Seal commando who will testify in relation to evidence that terrorist leader Osama bin Laden accessed material released by WikiLeaks. Manning's fate will ultimately turn on whether he is found guilty of espionage and "aiding the enemy" by passing classified information to a media organisation. This in itself will make Manning's court martial a landmark case for the media and journalism in the US and worldwide. Arguments may be made in mitigation, especially in relation to his troubled service in the US military, but a long prison sentence appears almost inevitable. Where does this leave Julian Assange? The WikiLeaks publisher remains at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, having been granted diplomatic asylum on the grounds he is at risk of extradition to the United States on possible conspiracy or other charges relating to Manning's disclosures. US Ambassador Jeffery Bleich this week declared it "ludicrous" to suggest that the US has any intention of seeking Assange's extradition from the UK or from Sweden where he is wanted for questioning about sexual assault allegations. Assange claims that extradition to Sweden would facilitate his eventual extradition to the US. Foreign Minister Bob Carr similarly dismissed the idea that the US wished to extradite Mr Assange. Julian Assange being in the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge has nothing to do with the United States. To suggest that the Swedes are after him as a CIA conspiracy to get him to Stockholm and allowing him to be bundled off to Langley, Virginia is sheer fantasy. Yet, notwithstanding repeated denials from both Bleich and Carr, there is an abundance of evidence that the US Government has been keenly interested in pursuing Assange. On November 29, 2010, the day after WikiLeaks and its media partners began releasing more than 250,000 State Department cables, US Attorney-General Eric Holder told a Washington press conference that the Justice Department was pursuing "an active, ongoing criminal investigation" into WikiLeaks. Australian diplomatic cables released to Fairfax Media have revealed that as early as December 7, 2010, the Washington embassy confirmed the Justice Department was conducting an "active and vigorous inquiry into whether Julian Assange can be charged under US law, most likely the 1917 Espionage Act." The embassy further reported that media reports that a secret grand jury had been convened in Alexandria, Virginia, to consider evidence arising from the WikiLeaks investigation were "likely true." The embassy continued to provide Canberra with regular updates through 2011 and 2012. including detailed reporting on the Manning court martial proceedings, the issuing of subpoenas to compel WikiLeaks associates to appear before the grand jury, and Justice Department efforts to access Twitter and other internet accounts to see if any intermediaries had been involved in communications between Assange and Manning. In December 2011 embassy highlighted the prosecution's assertions that Manning had leaked to WikiLeaks "and, specifically that Assange may have actively assisted Manning's efforts to extract the enormous database of US State Department cables." Other information revealed in Manning's pre-trial proceedings indicates that the Justice Department's WikiLeaks investigation has targeted at least seven civilians including the "founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks" for alleged offences including espionage. Only this week documents relating to the Manning prosecution revealed that WikiLeaks has been the subject of Central Intelligence Agency reports. Some commentators have asserted that a successful prosecution of Assange is impossible and that his fears are unjustified because the First Amendment free speech protections of the US Constitution would protect him as a journalist engaged in publication. However, prominent US legal experts have argued a prosecution case could at least be constructed and pressed in spite of First Amendment protections. Here it is important to understand that the likely issue would not be WikiLeaks' act of publication, but rather the circumstances of WikiLeaks' receipt of classified information and any advice or assistance Assange allegedly provided to Manning. A prosecution for a conspiracy charge appears more likely, and more viable as an eventual extradition case, than a charge under the Espionage Act. Neither Sweden or the UK would be at all likely to agree to extradition for an espionage offence. However a more narrowly constructed, non-political, charge could prove to be a different matter. Significantly Manning's statement to the court yesterday added very little about his on-line exchanges with WikiLeaks. Whether the US does intend to prosecute Assange remains to be seen. Ultimately it may boil down to a legal question of how far a journalist may go in encouraging, aiding or facilitating the unlawful disclosure of classified information. Assange will presumably be keen to see what further detail and allegations concerning himself and WikiLeaks are revealed when the prosecution presents its case at Manning's full court martial in June. So Assange won't be moving any time soon. However it appears inevitable that he will eventually have to leave Ecuador' embassy and face the sexual assault allegations that have been made against him in Sweden. There appears to be little prospect that these matters will be dropped or that Swedish prosecutors will agree to interview him in the United Kingdom. There is no diplomatic solution on the horizon. Neither Sweden or the United Kingdom have any inclination to offer Assange guarantees beyond the implementation of "due process." The US remains unlikely to reveal its hand until the Swedish allegations have been dealt with, one way or another. As Australia's Foreign Minister Carr made clear this week the Australian Government has washed its hands of Assange. Assange has indicated he will run for the Senate in the September 14 election. Hypothetically, it may be that as a Senator elect, Assange will be more prepared to leave his current place of asylum and seek a resolution of the Swedish allegations before new Senators take up their seats in mid-2014. Election to the Senate would afford Assange no legal protection, but it might weigh in the balance of any ultimately political decision by the US to seek his extradition. If the US does eventually seek Assange's extradition and prosecution, such an action would certainly have a political downside. Philip Crowley, who resigned as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's spokesman after publicly questioning the harsh conditions of Manning's imprisonment, observed some time ago "[a] prosecution of Julian Assange would come at a tremendous cost to the interests and values that [Americans] hold dear" and "carry some serious reputational costs" for the US government's image.