Quote:

---

the usual trolls truly would prefer the pilot get captured and tortured by the Iranians so they could claim a gotcha on Trump. It is a mental sickness.

---

Let's be honest: they wanted him dead for propaganda purposes. They do not care about America.

nai06 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Will you ever side with America on anything?

---

Of course and I do all the time. But I will not support the arrest and jailing of a journalist because I disagree with their take or they publish information when they have a constitutional right to do so.

---

There is no constitutional right to leak classified information about a warfighter in enemy territory.

Waaay too many 'journalists' think they have some sort of legal protection/'right' in court as to their sources. Pompous ass hats deserve, much more often than it happens, to be thrown in jail if they refuse to properly provide information under deposition/court orders.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Treason. That would be awesome!

---

Is it still treason if the leaker is too stupid to realize the real world impact of his/her act on the lives of our military and their families? You bet!

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Will you ever side with America on anything?

---

Of course and I do all the time. But I will not support the arrest and jailing of a journalist because I disagree with their take or they publish information when they have a constitutional right to do so.

---

There is no constitutional right to leak classified information about a warfighter in enemy territory.

---

The Supreme Court would seem to disagree with you. NYT v. United States (1971) aka the Pentagon Papers case.


Are there penalties for the person that leaked the information? Sure, provided that they were not authorized to do so. And the journalist who reported it would not have been able to induce the person to give up that info.


But barring that, publishing classified information is generally protected under the 1st Amendment.


Go after the person who leaked the information all you want.

🚨 BREAKING: The media outlet who published the US had only saved ONE of two F-15 airmen—risking the mission to save the second—was Israel's Channel 12, per NYP

The reporter, Amit Segal, just told NYP he "will protect my sources," despite President Trump's threats

Segal cited… pic.twitter.com/vt64eTtiLi

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) April 6, 2026

This issue will disappear with the quickness if true.

Yup. Shut it down!

nai06 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Will you ever side with America on anything?

---

Of course and I do all the time. But I will not support the arrest and jailing of a journalist because I disagree with their take or they publish information when they have a constitutional right to do so.

---

There is no constitutional right to leak classified information about a warfighter in enemy territory.

---

The Supreme Court would seem to disagree with you. NYT v. United States (1971) aka the Pentagon Papers case.


Are there penalties for the person that leaked the information? Sure, provided that they were not authorized to do so. And the journalist who reported it would not have been able to induce the person to give up that info.


But barring that, publishing classified information is generally protected under the 1st Amendment.


Go after the person who leaked the information all you want.

---

Did the journalist have a moral duty to protect the classified information to keep from endangering the life of the WSO and the people looking for him?

nai06 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Will you ever side with America on anything?

---

Of course and I do all the time. But I will not support the arrest and jailing of a journalist because I disagree with their take or they publish information when they have a constitutional right to do so.

---

There is no constitutional right to leak classified information about a warfighter in enemy territory.

---

The Supreme Court would seem to disagree with you. NYT v. United States (1971) aka the Pentagon Papers case.


Are there penalties for the person that leaked the information? Sure, provided that they were not authorized to do so. And the journalist who reported it would not have been able to induce the person to give up that info.


But barring that, publishing classified information is generally protected under the 1st Amendment.


Go after the person who leaked the information all you want.

---

That's a lot of words, but does not change the FACT

Quote:

---

" There is no constitutional right to leak classified information"

---

Quote:

---

This issue will disappear with the quickness if true.

---

If its an Israeli source, what US law did they break? You think the US Government can arrest leakers from other governments?

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

This issue will disappear with the quickness if true.

---

If its an Israeli source, what US law did they break? You think the US Government can arrest leakers from other governments?

---

Thats why I said it will disappear lol

PaulsBunions said:

---

🚨 BREAKING: The media outlet who published the US had only saved ONE of two F-15 airmen—risking the mission to save the second—was Israel's Channel 12, per NYP

The reporter, Amit Segal, just told NYP he "will protect my sources," despite President Trump's threats

Segal cited… pic.twitter.com/vt64eTtiLi

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) April 6, 2026

This issue will disappear with the quickness if true.

---

So will the reporter.

He's claiming other outlets, as well as The Guardian reported it first....

Thanks Ryan

But it wasn’t my scoop this time. A few Israeli outlets (and the Guardian as well reported it an hour before. Attached some examples: pic.twitter.com/NlqBpwyfnE

— Amit Segal (@AmitSegal) April 7, 2026

redcrayon said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Will you ever side with America on anything?

---

Of course and I do all the time. But I will not support the arrest and jailing of a journalist because I disagree with their take or they publish information when they have a constitutional right to do so.

---

There is no constitutional right to leak classified information about a warfighter in enemy territory.

---

The Supreme Court would seem to disagree with you. NYT v. United States (1971) aka the Pentagon Papers case.


Are there penalties for the person that leaked the information? Sure, provided that they were not authorized to do so. And the journalist who reported it would not have been able to induce the person to give up that info.


But barring that, publishing classified information is generally protected under the 1st Amendment.


Go after the person who leaked the information all you want.

---

Did the journalist have a moral duty to protect the classified information to keep from endangering the life of the WSO and the people looking for him?

---

Maybe. But they didn't have a legal duty to do so. I think they would say the public had a vested interest in what was happening.



I wouldn't personally have written something that could have jeopardized the missing pilot. But that's me.

Im Gipper said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Will you ever side with America on anything?

---

Of course and I do all the time. But I will not support the arrest and jailing of a journalist because I disagree with their take or they publish information when they have a constitutional right to do so.

---

There is no constitutional right to leak classified information about a warfighter in enemy territory.

---

The Supreme Court would seem to disagree with you. NYT v. United States (1971) aka the Pentagon Papers case.


Are there penalties for the person that leaked the information? Sure, provided that they were not authorized to do so. And the journalist who reported it would not have been able to induce the person to give up that info.


But barring that, publishing classified information is generally protected under the 1st Amendment.


Go after the person who leaked the information all you want.

---

That's a lot of words, but does not change the FACT

Quote:

---

" There is no constitutional right to leak classified information"

---

---

Can you point to something that backs your statement up?

nai06 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

That's a lot of words, but does not change the FACT

Quote:

---

" There is no constitutional right to leak classified information"

---

---

Can you point to something that backs your statement up?

---

Believe the document you are looking for is called The United States Constitution. Can you point to a part of the Constitution that protects a person from leaking classified information in a time of war?

The NYT v US was a 6-3 split decision and rested primarily on the interest of the public outweighed the claims of keeping it classified, unpublished and prosecution for the leakers.

If this moves forward, it would be a completely different set of facts than the Pentagon Papers.

Here a person leaked intelligence of an ongoing military operation that both put at risk the operation but the lives of the airman and of the rescue team.

That is not was the First Amendment protects.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

That's a lot of words, but does not change the FACT

Quote:

---

Quote:
" There is no constitutional right to leak classified information"

---

---

Can you point to something that backs your statement up?

---

Happy to!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And here is the case YOU cited:

In these cases, there is no problem concerning the President's power to classify information as "secret" or "top secret." Congress has specifically recognized Presidential authority, which has been formally exercised in Exec.Order 10501 (1953), to classify documents and information. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 798; 50 U.S.C. 783. [Footnote 5/1] Nor is there any issue here regarding the President's power as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief to protect national security by disciplining employees who disclose information and by taking precautions to prevent leaks.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/

Wrong thread disregard