>> He was not technically entitled to a lawyer. The Guardian sent lawyers to the airport when they were told of his detention. The lawyers were not allowed to see him.
> I know he wasn't technically entitled to a lawyer but he was offered one
Not from the Guardian, though.
I really can't work out what point you're trying to make. Is it that this story is a conspiracy by the Guardian to make the UK & US look bad?
> Why didn't the Guardian say OK, take us to court when they were threatened for example.
This is a totally separate event, but (Guardian editor) Rusbridger says in the comments to his article:
"Play out the scenario for me in which fighting this case in court would have enabled us to do a better job of reporting the Snowden documents. I'm not sure I quite see it..."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-m...
He further says in a comment to another article:
"A plausible alternative to what actually happened is that the UK would have gone to law (as threatened). From that moment the court would be in charge of the Snowden material. The penalty for destroying it or refusing to hand it over could be extremely punitive. I mean, unlimited fines - not jail ."