Julian Assange extradition are still requested by United States (guardian)

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. Photography: Jonathan Hordle/Rex Features

The U.S. justice department has always approached the British Government to extradite Julian Assange, in spite of one of his lawyers saying last week that an indictment would be imminent, according to British diplomats.

If the United States are preparing to seek extradition, is almost certain that the U.S. justice department and other officials would already be channelled to their counterparts in London in detail.

The U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder, is undergone enormous political action against the Assange pressures, but its officials are trying to find laws whereby mount a lawsuit.

Today, a Committee of the Congress, the House Judiciary Committee has evidence of a variety of lawyers about the possibility of prosecution under the Espionage Act and legal and constitutional issues raised by WikiLeaks.

There is a consensus among U.S. constitutional lawyers and other legal experts, while repeating problems attached to the prosecution, that Assange will be indicted. But they are dubious about the chances of extradition between Great Britain and think it will even more difficult the Sweden.

Floyd Abrams, the lawyer who has defended the New York Times in the Supreme Court on the leak the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, said today that the chances of a U.S. indictment against Assange were better than even. Paul Rosenzweig, a former assistant Secretary for policy Assistant in the Department of Homeland Security, the higher chances to 80%.

One of the lawyers of Assange, Jennifer Robinson, told ABC News last week that an indictment may be imminent.

But a spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington, asked if the United States approached the British Government on extradition, said today: "we no comment on extradition." Private, British diplomats have indicated that it had no substantive discussions with us about any impending extradition request.

Counsel for the U.S. are sceptical about whether Assange could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act and suggests that the Department of justice was looking for alternatives.

Another one of Mark Stephens Assange, lawyers said TV al-Jazeera that a grand jury constituted secretly already honored in Alexandria, Virginia, with a view to prosecution. A spokesman for the Ministry of justice refused to comment on.

Abrams said the Bush administration has introduced difficult cases in Alexandria, and rather CD and it would be interesting Obama administration was to do the same. "CD is the most natural place, but is likely to be more pro-defending and Virginia courts are more favourable to the prosecution," said Abrams.

He added: "it would certainly be an indictment if Assange had encouraged [Bradley Manning, private U.S. suspected of being behind the leak] to provide information and a mechanism to do so." Which could make it easier for the Department of justice to bring a charge of conspiracy. I have not given the opportunities that the 80%. I think it is better as well as they will take place. »

Assange and WikiLeaks could make an argument is that it is a new, as described on its Web site and should be protected from prosecution under the freedom of the press. It could be argued that if the Assange should be prosecuted, why not, the New York Times and the Guardian?

"There must be an element of bad faith is clearly absent with [New York] Times and, I presume, the Guardian." This is a problem of debatable with Assange, "said Abrams."

Rosenzweig, a fellow of the conservative Heritage Foundation agreed: "newspapers like the Guardian add analysis and the value of the business." WikiLeaks is just a compiler or a means of distribution. Is Assange character, apparently did not properly greeted by an American Board if it ever goes to one. »

Rosenzweig put the chances of an indictment at 80% more "because of the policy of the situation than anything else." The u.s. Government must be considered to take vigorous measures against the Assange. And, if the request for extradition is refused, then Governments can share in the "foul" for failing to justice Assange.

The meeting of the grand jury in Alexandria, Rosenzweig said: "" Alexandria is a place very probably the United States Government investigation... I would be relatively confident that it is accurate. ""

Another legal expert, Scott Silliman, Professor at Duke University law school also thought that the Department of justice consider charging conspiracy Assange in its dealings with Manning. "That would be a matter very"is dependent,"However, because the Government prove beyond a reasonable doubt Assange sought Manning files or somehow induced provide WikiLeaks files should be."

"Interestingly, however, if these facts are proved, it would be no different than what many journalists of newspaper U.S. facing their sources." This means that if fresh Government a violation of the espionage or a tender, the matter would still be very problematic and would set a precedent very controversial to media in this country. »

MSNBC TV this week asked a panel of three legal experts, including Rosenzweig, businessmen and the consensus that emerged was that it risked a court challenge.

One of the Panel, the Abbe Lowell, defence counsel stated: "WikiLeaks disclosures are getting more bold and causing more controversy." The United States will be finding a way to make accusations because not doing so will be deemed bad legal precedent, poor national policy and external relations. »

The third member, Stephen Vladeck, Professor of law at American University said that, if only there was no conviction in Sweden, "I think it is very likely that the u.s. Government will continue an indictment (or opens an indictment, he has already obtained) and to request the extradition of Assange". ""