WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is currently being held in solitary confinement within Britain's Dickensian Wandsworth prison awaiting possible extradition to Sweden. To date, Assange hasn't been charged with anything; a Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny merely wants to question him about allegations of sexual assault. Question: Would it be far more expedient for Ny to travel to the UK and question Assange there?

Sweden's chief prosecutor had earlier dropped the case due to lack of evidence. Once the case was deemed unsubstantiated, that should have been that, but a Swedish politician decided to reinvigorate the matter in a different city with a different prosecutor. Question: Why did a politician seek to re-open a closed case?

Then there is the curious matter of the Westminster Magistrates Court denying Assange bail despite celebrities — British heiress Jemima Khan, filmmaker Ken Loach, investigative journalist John Pilger — queuing up to support his bail application with cash in the region of £180,000 (Dh1.04 million).

The judge, who admitted he hadn't had sight of any evidence against the defendant, apparently considered Assange a flight risk even though he had voluntarily presented himself to the police, his passport has been confiscated and he offered to be subjected to curfew and electronic tagging. Question: If he had wanted to run why would he have gone to the police in the first place?

Just days later, a British newly wed Shrien Dewani was taken into custody on the strength of a South African arrest warrant claiming he paid carjackers to murder his bride. South African police are also investigating a possible link between Dewani and the 2007 murder of a doctor.

British justice

The South African authorities demand his extradition. This is where it gets interesting. Dewani has been given bail on a surety of £250,000. Question: Is British law equitable when someone like Assange who hasn't been charged is refused bail, while a man wanted for a murder — possibly two — gets to go home?

I can't help thinking that there is some funny business going on here. Sweden says it hasn't come under any pressure from Washington to pursue the claims against Assange but it's worth mentioning that Sweden's relationship with the US is particularly cozy.

Sweden's Minister of Foreign Affairs approved the CIA's illegal rendition of detainees through and from Swedish territory to countries known to use torture. Sweden's secret service also assisted US agents to abduct an Egyptian asylum seeker, Ahmad Agiza.

Sweden was later sued and paid Agiza €330,000 (Dh1.60 million) in compensation. Question: Sweden initially denied approving CIA rendition flights so why should Oslo's protestations in connection with Assange be taken at face value?

Moreover, when it has been revealed that the US has leant on PayPal, Amazon, Visa, MasterCard and a Swiss bank to cease dealing with WikiLeaks, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine that there have been a few phone calls between Eric Holder, the US Attorney-General, and his Swedish counterpart. Question: Why did the above-mentioned companies and bank close WikiLeaks' accounts on the say-so of the US when Assange has yet to be charged or convicted of any wrongdoing there?

Assange's lawyers have reason to believe a US indictment against their client and extradition request is being prepared by Washington under the 1917 Espionage Act. If that is the case, the British legal system will be sorely tested.

For one thing, Assange did not hack computers to download US diplomatic cables and there is no reason to believe he solicited anyone to do so. WikiLeaks disseminated the trove of information in the same way newspapers and television networks around the world are doing. The person responsible for espionage is the man who downloaded US secrets.

For another, aspects of the Espionage Act are at odds with the First Amendment as confirmed by subsequent Supreme Court rulings. Certainly, the 1917 Act was not effective to convict the New York Times for publishing the Pentagon Papers — the secret history of US involvement in Vietnam.

In any event, isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black when cables released by WikiLeaks show that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked US diplomats to spy on foreign leaders, collect their credit card and frequent flier numbers and harvest their DNA?

Lastly any US extradition request lodged with either Britain or Sweden in the event Assange is transferred there, should be denied on the grounds that he cannot receive a fair trial as various US politicians and newspapers have literally been baying for his blood. Jeffrey T. Kuhner, a columnist with the Washington Times wrote: "We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value targets: kill him…"

Bill O'Reilly of Fox News has dubbed him "a traitor who should be executed", Sarah Palin wants him hunted as a "terrorist" and Congressman Peter King wants WikiLeaks designated "a foreign terrorist organisation". Question: When Assange has already been tried and convicted by lawmakers and other influential voices, could any US court come up with an untainted jury pool?

Assange believes the British justice system is inherently fair and independent of government. I hope he is right but I can't help thinking he should have gone to Moscow instead. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has nominated him for a Nobel Prize. As a champion of press freedom and peace activist he deserves one.

- Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at: lheard@gulfnews.com. Some of the comments may be considered for publication.