[hitonagashi]

The judge isn't disputing that.

He's saying that it is necessary to face a trial to determine it, and he isn't going to just brush the charges away and say they were definitely nothing. He's saying there's enough uncertainty that there should be a trial to answer it.

[jrockway]

What's odd is that they only want to question him. Can't they question him, and if they don't like the answers, then extradite him? It all sounds a little odd to me.

I would just say, "I'm not going to answer your questions, so save yourself the cost of the flight and arrest me when you get some evidence."

[gillianseed]

This is something which has been brought up here in Sweden by people with legal background:

First the prosecutor at call (Marianne Ny) decided to arrest Julian Assange on the accusations from the two women. Meanwhile the news of his arrest has somehow been leaked to Expressen (a daily newspaper) the same evening.

Next day the chief prosecutor dismisses the case, this should have been the end of it.

However once Assange leaves the country, Marianne Ny (prosecutor on call) brings up the case again, and somehow manages to have Assange arrested on suspicion of rape, sexual assault, and has issued a european arrest order in order to question him.

This makes no sense, Marianne Ny says that the purpose of the international arrest is to 'question him', why couldn't she do that while he was still in Sweden? Why turn down the offers to question him on video conference or at an embassy in England BEFORE extraditing him given that Marianne Ny herself says that she doesn't have enough evidence to prosecute Assange and only wants to hear him at this time? Also given the huge costs that an 'international arrest order' brings along, to do so for questioning a suspect in such a weak case as this is unprecedented.

Yes, this is political.