@Tom 13 - And I don't necessarily disagree.
But for me, there is still the question of 'who decides if and when actions of this type should be taken - and why?'
If we accept that the government has that sole authority - @curly4 'They have the authority', and can utilise that authority prior to any press activity and in order to impede or punish such activity, there is nothing to say Richard Milhous couldn't have done the same, with the same authority. And Watergate could, under and utilising that authority, have been made to remain an obscure break in by persons unknown for reasons of little importance.
If we accept that a 'security breach' (your own comment) justifies actions of this type, then Felt committed such a breach. If we therefore accept that the press should have in some way refused to carry out the investigation and subsequent publicationh because such a breach was involved - we have the same result as in my previous paragraph.
The AP's records were apparently seized _after_ AP had cooperated with authorities ('At the request of the government, AP held off on publishing the story initially, after being warned it was a national security issue'). Apparently the AP only published when it appeared the only impediment was the government wanting to speak first ('but then declined to wait until the Obama administration had made an official statement on the matter').
Based on the presented data, I do not see anyone dying as a result of the AP's actions. I do not see the AP breaching any request based on national security. I do still see the records being seixzed - but tha'ts probably fine. After all, nobody would ever misuse them, would they?
Of course, I'm an Idiot....