Prior restraint says that the government cannot act before the act to stop the press. It assumes that if the Press indeed is in violation of the law, the damage must be done first before something can be done. This allows the Press the choice of conscience and to take the risk of legal sanctions if indeed they choose to unjustifiably abuse the public trust.
The Court insisted that the damage must be done before the state can act. Well now it is done. So it only follows that prosecutions should follow. Its silly to argue that because the Country is to have now ability to prevent Press organizations from compromising National Security, that once they have that the rule that prevented them from preventing the damage, then implies that we cannot hold these criminals to account.
"The Court insisted that the damage must be done before the state can act."
That was in relation to a historical document. If you read the record of the Pentagon Papers case, you see that the government had to prove that the publication of this historical document would result in immediate and irrevocable damage to the US. A majority on that Supreme Court didn't agree with the government's argument that it would result in immediate damage. But this case is entirely different - this case is about an ongoing program. I think the government would be justified in prosecuting in this case - all the way up to the Supreme Court - because the situations are so different.
There is several centuries of case law that says the government cannot stop a journalist from publishing something, but that the journalist is subject to criminal prosecution for what he publishes after that fact. To argue otherwise is ignorant or willfully dishonest.