::::::That's what I've been saying.  Half of your edits are great, so long as they don't go too far.  Each of those changes (financial repercussions, terrorist/death penalty, etc. are good additions).  The problem is that it started from a polemical approach and is now being incorporated into encyclopedic processes.  I'm sure you're not done with your work, but I'd still recommend targeted improvements over a great crusade or correction.   

 ::::::Excluding concerns of Europeans, hmm... I can't comment on that with credibility.  I'm an American and could be unaware of my bias.  We do use primarily English sources which are UK/US heavy.  It's possible we're missing some of the reactions from Germany and France, Scandinavia... but I still don't think our article has a particular slant.  (That doesn't mean it's complete yet either).  I mean, everything you've wanted to describe, we've added, just maybe not with the exhaustive detail or exposure-agenda you embarked on.  If you're looking at the article and still thinking, where's the outrage?, I think that's probably because the outrage is in you and not the sources.  Bring some sources that describe an outpouring of backlash against the calls for Assange's death, for example, and we'll incorporate some of that.  It hasn't happened extensively yet, to my knowledge.