As stated above, you need to read the UK Court Ruling at a minimum, since there is no point in discussion if you are not familiar with even the basic legal issues involved. And once you are done that you should read up on Swedish extradition policies.

The fact that extradition is legally possible and the Swedish prosecution is proceeding against all common reason and established judicial practice in the only way that keeps it possible is very much "probable cause" as regards the motives of the Swedish prosecution and thus constitutes reasonable grounds to believe that Assange's concerns about extradition to the United States are sensible.

Is this the ruling you're talking about? http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

The paragraphs are conveniently numbered. Which one discusses extradition to the United States?

Section 142 and particularly sections 7 through 10 are all about extradition. The reveal is the defense of Assange's case as being in the "preliminary investigation" stage and the catch-22 logic used to justify the Swedish refusal to move beyond it. As any schoolboy can find out by reading up on the matter, it is critical for extradition to the US that the investigation does not pass this stage, since actually charging Assange would give him legal protections which make extradition difficult, some of which are even outlined for you in Section 144.

Of course, since your objection is disingenuous (you cannot possibly be so naive as to believe that the Swedish prosecutor will publicly state that her goal is to indefinitely detain a suspect), let us just force your actual beliefs into the open: (1) why do you believe that an interview with Assange will provide the Swedish prosecutor evidence to prosecute if she doesn't already have it? (2) why do you coonsider it reasonable to extradite someone who has never been charged with a crime to answer questions instead of asking them over the telephone, Skype or in person?

Not even the UK High Court considered the Swedish position reasonable (see Section 160), so it is hard to imagine any sentient person coming to the opposite conclusion.

It raises the question of what Sweden really wants. They admit to not having evidence of his guilt, and they don't have a real plan to get evidence. So why do they want him in their territory so badly?