I agree it's ridiculous. However, given what happened to Chelsea Manning, and given that the Guardian, NYT, etc can't always know in advance what could be const

I agree it's ridiculous. However, given what happened to Chelsea Manning, and given that the Guardian, NYT, etc can't always know in advance what could be construed as "aiding the enemy" it's sensible (in a self-preserving sense of the word) for them to get a NSA/GCHQ opinion on what pieces would "aid the enemy" and what wouldn't. They don't necessarily have to listen to the NSA or GCHQ, but later in court they can legitimately claim that they made an honest effort to avoid divulging information that would aid the enemy.