To recap: Sweden was such a beacon of freedom and human rights that Julian Assange was trying to get residency status there. Until he faced rape charges, wherein he left to the UK (contrary to earlier statements of his lawyer who was caught in court lying about him being no longer wanted when he left). Now, the UK, the US's key partner in the global rendition scheme, a nation so tied to the US that the connection is known as "The Special Relationship", was Assange's beacon of hope and freedom. Sweden was free to come interview him, but would be legally unable to file charges after questioning, the intent of the arrest warrant. This situation remained the status quo until two British courts, one of which was the high court, ruled that he should be extradited to stand trial. Rather than take his court to the European Court of Human Rights, he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy, where he was granted asylum. He has since insisted that he will not come out until he gets assurances that he will not get extradited to face charges related to Wikileaks and that he fears for his safety if extradited, as well as criticizing Australia for not standing up for him.
Well, congratulations, Julian, it's your lucky day: Australia was just given those assurances from Sweden. Now get out of the damn embassy.
"We have sought assurances from Sweden (that) due processes will be accorded.
"And the Swedes have said they don't extradite anyone if there's a capital offence or it's a matter to do with military or intelligence."
So unless you think you think that the US is going to extradite you for a crime unrelated to the military, unrelated to intelligence (aka Wikileaks), or for which you might be facing something that makes it otherwise illegal in Sweden to expedite you, such as the death penalty... So if you stole a car in Boston or burned down a house in San Diego, yeah, you're still on the hook. Apart from that, you got your guarantee, from Swedish consular officials, direct to the Australian foreign minister. To do anything more than that - to say "we'll never extradite you no matter what the situation, even for legitimate crimes and even if we get assurances of no death penalty, no abuse, etc" - would be a direct pledge to publicly violate their extradition treaty, without even a fig leaf of an excuse, and beyond that, morally indefensible.
What's Sweden talking about? Here's the Swedish extradition law, in English. Here's the case law that made it illegal to extradite people in the EU where the court is aware of a real possibility of the person facing inhuman or degrading treatment, including the death penalty. Here and here ban the extradition for intelligence or military charges.
So lets break this down. Let's say the US tries to extradite you. First, it goes to initial judicial review.. While no country is perfect, and faults can be found in any judicial system, Sweden has the highest ranked court system on Earth in terms of fundamental rights, with the biggest ranked problem for Swedish courts being "Effective Criminal Justice" (aka, you're too likely to be set free in Sweden even if guilty ). If the process continues, you can take your case to the Swedish high court. And even if the high court rules against you, the Swedish government - the same Swedish government which just assured Australia that they won't extradite you suchly - can override them and block the extradition (but cannot override a ruling that you should not be let go).
But wait, it's not over. Under the terms of the European Arrest Warrant, the UK also has to approve extradition. Which means that you get another chance with the UK lower court for the same conditions, and then another chance with the UK high court, and then another chance for the UK government to similarly refuse your extradition. What a deal.
But wait, it's not over. Because beyond all this you can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, whose mission is to prevent precisely what you're charging will happen in this situation. In fact, while occasionally criticized for not going far enough, far more often the court is criticized for going too far in the pursuit of preventing human rights abuses.
Note that this is all premised on the assumption that the US actually will try to seek your extradition. We're just assuming that as a given here. Which it hardly is.
Let's just ignore how the argument "a person has made enemies unrelated to serious crimes means that they can get out of trial for said serious crimes until they're happy with the situation in which they'll be tried" would be catastrophic when applied to war criminals (who invariably tick off other people unrelated to their crimes, such as by aligning with the US or one of its geopolitical enemies). Let's ignore that every day you're in the embassy you're distracting from and diverting resources from the actual cause of transparency. Let's ignore that the sort of leader you're now aligning yourself with has an atrocious record, such as imprisoning journalists for insulting him and shutting down an opposing newspaper after trying to bribe the first judge, then having his own attorney write the legal ruling, or that he's as we speak preparing to extradite a whistleblower to a dictatorship where he'll likely be executed. Let's just ignore those sort of things for now.
You said you wanted your country to stand up for you. You said you wanted assurances from Sweden, and then you'd go to stand trial. Well, guess what? Your government sought said assurances from Sweden, and they gave them. You got what you wanted.
Now get the fuck out of the embassy.