1. This was done by the British for a slight against the American government.
2. This is against a member of the media, who are typically considered noncombatants in political conflicts.
3. It's really against a family member; doubly noncombatant.
4. The supposed slight is only the truthful announcement of a criminal act by the government in question.
5. This comes after the government recently argued that they could be trusted with such powers.
Not true. He also exposed British spying through GCHQ.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/gchq
>> "2. This is against a member of the media, who are typically considered noncombatants in political conflicts."
It was done against a member of the medias partner. He is not a journalist.
NB: I'm not defending any of what happened it's very clearly wrong.
>3. It's really against a family member; doubly noncombatant.
"While in Berlin, Miranda had visited Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has also been working on the Snowden files with Greenwald and the Guardian. The Guardian paid for Miranda's flights."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald...
Nowadays, we are all journalists. We all have means to publish material to a wide audience.
From the 1st amendment: - Congress shall make no law ... etc ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
There is no distinction granting the "media" or "journalists" special rights that all of us don't get. We all should have freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
The UK government acts under it's own laws, and so any 1st amendment violation depends on the US government's degree of involvement in the proceedings.