Please reword and summarize the following:

 On behalf of Mr. Assange, Mark Summers QC argued that the District Judge's finding that extradition would be oppressive was not specifically related to the prospect that Mr. Assange would be subject to SAMs and/or detention at ADX, and therefore the proposed assurances would not alter her decision. Second, that assurances offered by the USA at a 'late stage' in the proceedings were an attempt by the USA to change their case and were too late. Third, that the assurances offered were 'conditional, qualified and aspirational', and left open the possibility that Mr. Assange would be subject to SAMs and/or detention at ADX. Fourth, even if the assurances were effective to remove any possibility of Mr. Assange being subject to SAMs and/or detention, there remained a substantial risk that he would be subject to other restrictive forms of detention, exacerbating his condition and leading to his suicide. Lastly, even if the assurances excluded any substantial risk of detention, the assurances themselves were to be doubted.

Giving the judgment, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon ('the LCJ') rejected all five submissions. The LCJ held that, regardless of the late stage at which the assurances had been made, the High Court had the power to consider them whenever they were made by a Requesting State, and furthermore, had the District Judge offered the USA the opportunity to consider providing assurances before the discharge of Mr. Assange, the USA would have offered them.