Assange could be questioned while he is abroad:

[Are_grits_groceries]

<snip>
In October and November Assange's lawyers offered a telephone or video-link interview (because telephone or video interviews with suspects abroad are lawful in Sweden and qualify for the purposes of a preliminary investigation), but the options were denied as Ny insisted that Assange be interviewed in person.
<snip>
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/11734-uk-supreme-court-denies-request-to-reconsider-assange-extradition-ruling

Why didn't they even take this preliminary step? That would seem to be the logical place to start.
They were hell bent on getting him on Swedish soil.

[hlthe2b]

1. we have handful of Assange antagonists that have argued against this vociferously & condescendingly

I have had a couple of quasi self-defined experts on the Swedish legal system claim this is impossible to do when I have argued just this point. To which I say BS. As we have seen with our own sacrosanct constitution-- that has nonetheless allowed for a lifting of habeus corpus, indefinite detainment without trial of even US citizens, torture, and the like-- countries CAN and do make things "legal" when it suits their aims. Seems that a simple interview could be accomodated.

If there is anything REAL there in terms of sexual assault claims, then, for Gawd's sakes complete the investigation--which means INTERVIEW the accused. And given the extraordinary circumstances, do it on his turf.

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. The answer to that:

Twitter is alive with the assertion that Julian Assange is wanted by Sweden for "questioning" and has not been "charged". In addition we are told that Assange offered to be questioned in London and that Sweden's rejected of this offer is "suspicious".

It is not unusual in media coverage of extradition cases for differences between common law and civil law legal systems to be forgotten. In reality Julian Assange is not wanted for questioning, certainly not in the way as this expression is used in common law legal procedure, ie a police interview.

European Arrest Warrants may only be issued for the purposed of conducting a criminal prosecution not merely an investigation. In Sweden in order to charge an individual with a criminal offence, the investigated person must be brought before a magistrate to be formally interrogated. The person must be present. The evidence is put to him and he is given a opportunity to reply. This is not a police interview. The investigated person has the right to be legally represented. It is only after this procedure takes place that formal charges can be preferred. If charges are preferred a trial follows shortly afterwards.

(snip)

Thus Assange's offer to allow himself to be interviewed by the Swedish prosecutors in London was disingenuous. The case against him has progressed to an advanced stage and his presence in Sweden is required. This is after all why Sweden requested his surrender.

http://purehearsay.blogspot.co.uk/2012_08_01_archive.html

[SidDithers]

3. Good post...

And that pretty clearly answers the OP's question.

Sid

[Are_grits_groceries]

4. And if you really think he will be given true due process

in whatever form it takes in whatever country, I have bridges to sell you.

Your complete belief in the sanctity of the law and the impeccable character of the representtives of the law is touching. It is also naive in the face of the many abuses already perpetrated.

Assange is not the white knight free from all blemishes that people rush to defend. There are no people like that. We choose to demand that he not be thrown overboard into what has become a Escherian system of justice.

I do not believe any of the assurances given by any of those involved. Of course, you are free to believe as you like. Dream on.

[Robb]

5. You asked, he explained. Now you move the goalposts.

Why even ask a legal question when your rationale is that the law will not be followed?

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. The goalposts have been moved so much

over many years, that they are now on wheels.

I asked out of curiosity I guess. Why do I even ask legal questins anymore? ...sigh...

[hack89]

7. Assange left Sweden AFTER an interview was scheduled in Sweden.

His lawyer was told on the 22nd of September 2010 that Assange was to be interviewed on the 28th - Assange left Sweden on the 27th.

Assange is being disingenuous as hell - he knows he can't be arrested as long as he stays out of Sweden.

In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days [after 15th September] I telephoned [Ms Ny] a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.” He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

[struggle4progress]

8. From your link: "... The case brought before the Supreme Court of the U.K. concerned whether

a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by Sweden for Julian Assange was valid. In its ruling of May 30, the seven-member panel of judges held that the EAW was valid and as a result Assange now will be extradited to Sweden to face charges of sexual assault ..."

The issues have already been litigated, including the issue you seek to reopen here. The warrant was found valid. Assange was given a fortnight to appeal to Strasbourg, but he decided not to. He has been issued instructions to surrender for arrest and handover to Sweden