You are getting fed a lie. Sweden can formally indict Assange anytime. The problem is that doing this would require the prosecutor to move her case beyond the

You are getting fed a lie. Sweden can formally indict Assange anytime. The problem is that doing this would require the prosecutor to move her case beyond the "preliminary investigation" stage, at which point she would have to file actual evidence of the crime with the court and release it to Assange (who could publish it and show the prosecution for the farce that it quite obviously is). Indicting Assange would also make it impossible for the Swedish authorities to detain him indefinitely without trial (something otherwise possible in Sweden in the case of "preliminary investigations"). And the indictment would also make it possible for Assange to challenge his extradition on the basis of actual charges instead of vague and unsubstantiated allegations. The Swedish prosecution was obviously interested in having their warrant evaluated on the much narrower question of whether it was technically valid. The terminology dance you are referring to played out because while Sweden wanted to extradite Assange without coughing up any evidence supporting their case, it is not legal to extradite a subject for mere questioning. So for the arrest warrant to be technically valid, the Swedish prosecutor had to insist that while Assange was technically wanted only for questioning and no decision had been made to indict him, the prosecution was in an "advanced" state and he was virtually guaranteed to be charged. Anyone can see sections 142 and 144 (ii) from the High Court Ruling to watch the dance in action: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html