It appears that the fallout from the NSA spying scandal is still unraveling. David Miranda, partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, has filed a lawsuit against the British government after he says he was illegally detained by authorities in London's Heathrow Airport.

Greenwald is one of the journalists who first broke the news about Edward Snowden that revealed the inner workings of the NSA's internet spying program. Since that time, Western governments have sought to detain Snowden, who is currently in Russia under asylum for a year. Now it appears they have been keeping close tabs on Greenwald and his associates as well.

Miranda, who originally hails from Brazil, says he was making his way from Berlin to Brazil when he had a layover in London. It was there that he was detained for roughly nine hours while being questioned by local authorities who seized many of his items. Among the confiscated possessions include his laptop, cell phone, USB memory sticks, a hard drive, a smart watch and a games console.

It has been confirmed that some of those items did contain information sensitive to Greenwald's job as a reporter. Miranda claims that he was told by officials that he was being detained as per Schedule 7 of Terrorism Act 2000. That act allows for the detainment of individuals deemed to potentially be a terrorist threat, but makes no mention of individuals associated with journalists. 

"This is obviously a rather profound escalation of their attacks on the news-gathering process and journalism," wrote Greenwald. "It's bad enough to prosecute and imprison sources. It's worse still to imprison journalists who report the truth. But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by."

What's even more unsettling about Miranda's detainment is his claim that he was not interrogated at all regarding any terrorist motives he may have had. Such a lack of questioning would lead one to believe that British authorities had no intention of properly applying Terrorism Act 2000, and instead used it as an excuse to confiscate Miranda's personal effects.

This incident is scary enough in its own right, as the British (and by proxy, the United States) government now feels it is acceptable to confiscate journalistic materials under the guise of a terrorist threat. Add to that fear the current state of Guantanamo Bay, wherein many "terrorists" have been held for upwards of a decade without a trial, and you have all of the makings of a government that is far closer in nature to a despotic regime than a representative democracy.

"I have seen many stories that people are picked up in different countries ... and they are vanished, nobody sees them," Miranda said Tuesday in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper. "In that moment, I was really afraid what would happen to me."

Granted, that would be a shade unlikely given his affiliation with one of the most well-known journalists on the planet, but still, it's a scary thought.

Again, it should be noted that this was the British government's actions and not that of the United States, but at this point that distinction seems increasingly irrelevant. The weight of the United States sits heavy on the minds of the British government, and to think that they were not working in tandem on this project, or to believe they would react any differently towards an American reporter, would be perilously naive.

Which brings us back to the lawsuit now being filed by lawyers on behalf of Miranda. They are attempting to get public recognition of the fact that he was unlawfully detained on the basis of the Terrorism Act 2000. They are also requesting that all of Miranda's items that were confiscated be returned to him and that the government be barred from using or dispersing them in any manner.

So far the British government has defended its actions. They have used the predictable rhetoric of national security in their defense of Miranda's questioning. 

"If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that," said a statement by Britain's Home Office. "Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning."

Undoubtedly, those who oppose such measures are aware of the potential dangers of terroristic entities. We have all been witness to 9/11 and the 2005 London bombings, and it's doubtful any rational person would question detaining individuals with similar motives. The only question left to be asked is: have we really reached a point in Western governance where groundbreaking journalism is considered terrorism?