The UK will extradite to the US for a capital offence, but only with a written assurance that the death penalty will not be applied. I don't think the US would risk its extradition treaty for the sake of one person.
The question the Assange fans never seem to want to answer is why, if the US secretly wants to have Assange extradited, they didn't do that in the months when he was under house arrest in the UK. Why would they concoct an elaborate conspiracy to get him to Sweden so they could extradite from there, when it would be harder than extraditing from the UK?
> Can you support that claim?
Yes, and I've linked to a source in a different comment that's at the moment at -2 here. It's both due to the The Doctrine of Specialty and whether what he has done is a crime in Sweden or not [0, 1, 2].
When Sweden asked for Assange's extradition from the UK he was arrested after presenting himself to the London police and then let out on bail. London's Belmarsh Magistrate's Court then rules in favor of Assange's extradition. Then the High Court upholds this decision. Then he wins the right to appeal to the UK Supreme Court because his case is "a question of general public importance." He was certainly willing to face the UK legal system.
The UK's Supreme Court also ruled that he should be extradited to Sweden, at which point he jumped bail and fled to the embassy where he sought and received political asylum. He fled to the embassy only after all legal ways of getting out of the extradition from the UK to Sweden was exhausted. Nowhere in this has the US made any claims on him, all such talk comes from Assange himself that says it's all part of a smear campaign. If the Swedish charges are dropped he will still face the criminal charges in the UK from jumping bail.
[0] http://jtl.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/04/F...
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index...
[2] https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearend...
That's the standard European countries have adopted for such extraditions.
Can you support that claim?
My understanding was exactly the opposite. Sweden can't execute someone who would face the death penalty where they are being extradited. That's part of why Assange hasn't been charged under the Espionage Act - it would bar extradition. I'm not conspiracy theorizing there, it's been explicitly stated that extradition is a reason to delay charging him until he can be brought here to face a grand jury.
> "Sweden isn't a better country to extradite him to the US from than the UK."
This claim doesn't seem relevant. As soon as he was facing legal involvement in the UK (or as soon as he got asylum, I'm not sure how the timing shook out there), he ran for the embassy. Your implication seems to be that he's hiding from Swedish prosecution rather US law, but I've seen no indication that he would leave the embassy if Sweden dropped charges. Without that, I don't see how the Sweden/UK distinction matters - he's avoiding both legal systems which could extradite him.
This is a sincere question - I'd like to know anything backing those points. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I haven't seen anything suggesting that A) Sweden couldn't extradite, or B) Assange is willing to face the UK legal system but not the Swedish one. One or both of those seems necessary for your conclusion.