Having a press pass is not diplomatic immunity. Hypothetically, if a journalist was caring launch codes for our nuclear weapons, you wouldn't want the codes to fall in the wrong hands, right?
So far, the only information we know that Snowden stole was about the internet scanning software but who knows what other information he actually took. Even if his access was limited to computer technology, he would still have access to information that could put our nation in jeopardy.
Look at it this way. He was given asylum by Russia. If you were Russia, would you trust someone who was a traitor to his own government? Of course not. So why grant him asylum? Easy, he has other information that Russia could find useful and are granting him asylum in trade for it.
Look at drug mules. People who may be traveling to another country for other reasons may also profit from transporting drugs. This is why people that have come from certain places know from drug sources are screened more thoroughly. Clearly someone who had close access to Snowden may be transporting sensitive information out our country so would be suspect. If the information could jeopardize our nation, it should be stopped. This should be the case no matter if the reporter plans to make it public or is just acting to transport it to terrorist who may already be in our borders.
If the search does not turn up anything harmful, no problem. Obviously, if they went to see Snowden, they would acknowledge that it would make them suspect and so any search or interrogation would be understood. Hypothetically, if you knew the police were watching a known drug lab and you went inside, you would expect to be stopped and searched by the police when you left. Clearly, someone like Snowden is seen as a possible threat to national security so any search or interrogation of people connected to him in any way should be understandable.
The definition of terrorism is acts of violence perpetrated against a civilian population. For that matter, Snowden himself isn't even a terrorist. His actions are in direct contradiction with the definition, as his actions were intended for the benefit of the civilian population. The case can be made for treason maybe, but certainly not terrorism.
Journalists who help Edward Snowden, or similar whistleblowers who violate US law, should not be held criminally responsible, much less be prosecuted as terrorists. It is damaging to US government and military interests for US government employees or contractors such as Edward Snowden to leak government secrets, and for journalists to publish them. However, it may be beneficial to US citizens or to the world as a whole. For this reason, it is essential that the freedom of the press be respected.
A terrorist is someone who uses violence to intimidate people who disagree with them and promote their political beliefs. Regardless of how someone may think about the journalists who helped Edward Snowden, it wouldn't be accurate or fair to describe them as terrorists. They didn't physically assault or kill anyone through their actions like ISIS, the IRA or Al Qaeda.
I think it is damaging for the government to label any person that publishes articles against it as a terrorist threat. It makes the real terrorist even closer to us, for they can pass as journalists outside of our circles. And real journalists will suffer outside our borders because we are labeling them the same as killing terrorists.
The Edward Snowden issue is highly controversial because we have information. We don't have only one side presented to us. We know Snowden's side as well. There are people who agree with him and people who disagree with him. It's admirable that journalists want to get the information out there. Citizens have a right to information about what their governments are doing and journalists shouldn't fear retaliation.