Israel MUST stop recieving all USA funds

[progressive hunter]

Everyone.
Obviously there has always historically been a very significant right to privacy.
It is why you need to get a warrant before conducting a search, why you arrest peeping toms, hidden cams, etc.
You will notice that in most countries, they fuzz out the face of people in news video if they are not public figures and have not consented.
The Roe V Wade ruling was based on the inherent right of privacy, for example.

show me where in any document let alone the constitution that exists??

 

[Rigby5]

show me where in any document let alone the constitution that exists??

The right to privacy is pretty basic.

Right to privacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

{...
The right to privacy is an element of various legal traditions that intends to restrain governmental and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals.[1][2] Over 150 national constitutions mention the right to privacy.[3]

10 December 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) originally written to guarantee individual rights of everyone everywhere. The words Right to Privacy is not written in the document however, many interpret this by reading Article 12,[4] which states:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Since the global surveillance disclosures of 2013, initiated by ex-NSA employee Edward Snowden, the right to privacy has been a subject of international debate. Government agencies, such as the NSA, CIA, R&AW and GCHQ, have engaged in mass, global surveillance.

Some current debates around the right to privacy include whether privacy can co-exist with the current capabilities of intelligence agencies to access and analyze many details of an individual's life; whether or not the right to privacy is forfeited as part of the social contract to bolster defense against supposed terrorist threats; and whether threats of terrorism are a valid excuse to spy on the general population.

Private sector actors can also threaten the right to privacy—particularly technology companies, such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Yahoo that use and collect personal data. These concerns have been strengthened by scandals, including the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal, which focused on psychographic company Cambridge Analytica which used personal data from Facebook to influence large groups of people.[5]
...

History​

The concept of a human "right to privacy" begins when the Latin word "ius" expanded from meaning "what is fair" to include "a right - an entitlement a person possesses to control or claim something," by the Decretum Gratiani in Bologna, Italy in the 12th Century.[6]

In the United States, an article in the December 15, 1890 issue of the Harvard Law Review, written by attorney Samuel D. Warren and future U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, entitled "The Right to Privacy", is often cited as the first explicit finding of a U.S. right to privacy. Warren and Brandeis wrote that privacy is the "right to be let alone", and focused on protecting individuals. This approach was a response to recent technological developments of the time, such as photography and sensationalist journalism, also known as "yellow journalism".[7]

Privacy rights are inherently intertwined with information technology. In his widely cited dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States (1928), Brandeis relied on thoughts he developed in his 1890 article The Right to Privacy.[7] In that dissent, he urged that personal privacy matters were more relevant to constitutional law, going so far as to say that "the government was identified as a potential privacy invader." He writes, "Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet." At that time, telephones were often community assets, with shared party lines and potentially eavesdropping switchboard operators. By the time of Katz, in 1967, telephones had become personal devices with lines not shared across homes and switching was electro-mechanical. In the 1970s, new computing and recording technologies raised more concerns about privacy, resulting in the Fair Information Practice Principles.

In recent years there have been few attempts to clearly and precisely define the "right to privacy".
...}

If privacy was not significant, then it would not be a crime to forcibly remove the clothing from someone in public.
You could also bug or video monitor someone in their home.
You could not complain about a warrantless search.

 

[progressive hunter]

The right to privacy is pretty basic.

Right to privacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

{...
The right to privacy is an element of various legal traditions that intends to restrain governmental and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals.[1][2] Over 150 national constitutions mention the right to privacy.[3]

10 December 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) originally written to guarantee individual rights of everyone everywhere. The words Right to Privacy is not written in the document however, many interpret this by reading Article 12,[4] which states:


Since the global surveillance disclosures of 2013, initiated by ex-NSA employee Edward Snowden, the right to privacy has been a subject of international debate. Government agencies, such as the NSA, CIA, R&AW and GCHQ, have engaged in mass, global surveillance.

Some current debates around the right to privacy include whether privacy can co-exist with the current capabilities of intelligence agencies to access and analyze many details of an individual's life; whether or not the right to privacy is forfeited as part of the social contract to bolster defense against supposed terrorist threats; and whether threats of terrorism are a valid excuse to spy on the general population.

Private sector actors can also threaten the right to privacy—particularly technology companies, such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Yahoo that use and collect personal data. These concerns have been strengthened by scandals, including the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal, which focused on psychographic company Cambridge Analytica which used personal data from Facebook to influence large groups of people.[5]
...

History​

The concept of a human "right to privacy" begins when the Latin word "ius" expanded from meaning "what is fair" to include "a right - an entitlement a person possesses to control or claim something," by the Decretum Gratiani in Bologna, Italy in the 12th Century.[6]

In the United States, an article in the December 15, 1890 issue of the Harvard Law Review, written by attorney Samuel D. Warren and future U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, entitled "The Right to Privacy", is often cited as the first explicit finding of a U.S. right to privacy. Warren and Brandeis wrote that privacy is the "right to be let alone", and focused on protecting individuals. This approach was a response to recent technological developments of the time, such as photography and sensationalist journalism, also known as "yellow journalism".[7]

Privacy rights are inherently intertwined with information technology. In his widely cited dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States (1928), Brandeis relied on thoughts he developed in his 1890 article The Right to Privacy.[7] In that dissent, he urged that personal privacy matters were more relevant to constitutional law, going so far as to say that "the government was identified as a potential privacy invader." He writes, "Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet." At that time, telephones were often community assets, with shared party lines and potentially eavesdropping switchboard operators. By the time of Katz, in 1967, telephones had become personal devices with lines not shared across homes and switching was electro-mechanical. In the 1970s, new computing and recording technologies raised more concerns about privacy, resulting in the Fair Information Practice Principles.

In recent years there have been few attempts to clearly and precisely define the "right to privacy".
...}

If privacy was not significant, then it would not be a crime to forcibly remove the clothing from someone in public.
You could also bug or video monitor someone in their home.
You could not complain about a warrantless search.

try again buttercup,,

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[rylah]

in the 80s Israel was building its own National Fighter Jet named 'Lavie' plane. Long story short, The US pressed Israel to stop developing it, in its final stages, in return for annual funding Standing on3 Billion USD of which 75% can only be used in buying from the US - killing the terrific Israeli industries.

View attachment 491616

Since 2019 Israel started recieving 3.8 Billion USD - 100% of it can only be used in buying from the US.

This Aid makes us uncapble of selling Israeli weapons without the US approval - to show you how bad the aid economically to Israel - in one drone deal with Azerbaijan we sold them 5 Billion USD worth of arms. not speaking about Russia and China - there are dozens of nations the US veto and forcing us not to sell them our drones in fear of competition .

the Aid is buying the US enormous amount of control in our land - which has been used maliciously against us several times - First of all - in the terrible Oslo agreement - forcing Israel to recognize and arm the murderous terror organization of Arafat - which killed thousands of Israeli citizens in bus bombing, drive by shootings and rocket attakcs, stabbing and suicide bombings.

the Second time - Clinton tried so hard to force Israel on giving the Arabs Jerusalem and Judeah and Samaria [ all in order to get a 'nobel peace' prize ] - Practically forming a terror state 5 km of our main airport, Making Israel a 16 KM wide border country.
View attachment 491618
[Tel aviv from Judeah and Samaria. Imagine if Israel got thousdands of missiles from this strategic mountains - instead of the desertish strip of Gaza. this would happen under the Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama's peace deals. every single one of them wished to force Israel out of this historically Jewish lands ]

The AID completley destroys Israel's independence - and is the worst thing to happen in the alliance between Israel to the USA.

We appreciate the US [ not the modern democratic party.. tho ] and we do not wish to get your money. now listen to this.

The US aid to Israel - 3.8 Bs$ - is less than 0.8% of our GDP.

Unlike what many in the world would think - Israel could give up on the aid TODAY, and it not only would not kill our country - it would strenghten Israel - and the US -Israel relations.

Israel can't be bought.
And it's the only free maneuvrable player,
due to size and position, with the potential to make
critical geopolitical moves to decide the fate of empires.

US yearly aid is one and a half times less than the budget of the Israeli Arab community.
yet that aid is seen as having some power grip, for the headlines, because it's difficult to fathom,
the values shared on the personal level, education, and tradition, playing out as the main source of
this long relationship. Bennet and Netanyahu live an hour's drive from most of us, there's no high tower.

The Lavi project is a common argument point in Israel, as a starter.
However, both the Lavi and Kfir, or the Nesher, and others are examples of the above.
Because it was exactly the result of the French embargo, that the Kfir was sold abroad,
and the famed Lavi project, is still alive and well in China despite the attempted failing US ban.

In other words, how did the Columbian Kfir shoot down an F15 and seven F16's?




To really understand the trajectory and intuition behind Israeli defense
one has to realize that India and at large, what's called the 'far east',
has been the main destination for generations of IDF reservists.

As much as the distance between Bennet and Netanyahu,
unusual for the average US resident, so are IDF, IAF,
merely express what's been there for generations,
a natural trajectory now realizing in the open.

‘India-Israel ties no longer just a close friendship’ | India News - Times of India

India News: From defence to green tech, the two countries have much to share and learn from each other

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[Rigby5]

try again buttercup,,

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There can be no absolutes on something like the right of privacy, which is an abstraction based on the subjective human experience.
So while wiki is just a public consensus, that is sufficient for something that is defined by our DNA.
But there are lots of other sources.

Does the Government Guarantee a Right to Privacy?

Where did the right to privacy come from? This timeline explores the origins of the right to privacy and the constitutional merits—or lack thereof.

www.thoughtco.com

{...

Where Did the Right to Privacy Come From?​

Constitutional Merits and Congressional Acts​

By
Tom Head

Updated on October 28, 2019
The right to privacy is the time-travel paradox of constitutional law: Even though it didn't exist as a constitutional doctrine until 1961 and didn't form the basis of a Supreme Court ruling until 1965, it is, in some respects, the oldest constitutional right. This assertion that we have "the right to be left alone," as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, forms the common foundation of the freedom of conscience outlined in the First Amendment; the right to be secure in one's person outlined in the Fourth Amendment; and the right to refuse self-incrimination outlined in the Fifth Amendment. Yet, the word "privacy" itself appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.
Today, the "right to privacy" is a common cause of action in many civil lawsuits. As such, modern tort law includes four general categories of invasion of privacy: intrusion into a person's solitude/private space by physical or electronic means; unauthorized public disclosure of private facts; publication of facts that place a person in a false light; and unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain a benefit. A variety of laws have worked in tandem over the centuries to allow Americans to stand up for their privacy rights:

Bill of Rights Guarantees, 1789​

The Bill of Rights proposed by James Madison includes the Fourth Amendment, describing an unspecified "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." It also includes the Ninth Amendment, which states that "[t]he enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This amendment, however, does not specifically mention a right to privacy.
...}

 

[progressive hunter]

There can be no absolutes on something like the right of privacy, which is an abstraction based on the subjective human experience.
So while wiki is just a public consensus, that is sufficient for something that is defined by our DNA.
But there are lots of other sources.

Does the Government Guarantee a Right to Privacy?

Where did the right to privacy come from? This timeline explores the origins of the right to privacy and the constitutional merits—or lack thereof.

www.thoughtco.com

{...

Where Did the Right to Privacy Come From?​

Constitutional Merits and Congressional Acts​

By
Tom Head

Updated on October 28, 2019
The right to privacy is the time-travel paradox of constitutional law: Even though it didn't exist as a constitutional doctrine until 1961 and didn't form the basis of a Supreme Court ruling until 1965, it is, in some respects, the oldest constitutional right. This assertion that we have "the right to be left alone," as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, forms the common foundation of the freedom of conscience outlined in the First Amendment; the right to be secure in one's person outlined in the Fourth Amendment; and the right to refuse self-incrimination outlined in the Fifth Amendment. Yet, the word "privacy" itself appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.
Today, the "right to privacy" is a common cause of action in many civil lawsuits. As such, modern tort law includes four general categories of invasion of privacy: intrusion into a person's solitude/private space by physical or electronic means; unauthorized public disclosure of private facts; publication of facts that place a person in a false light; and unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain a benefit. A variety of laws have worked in tandem over the centuries to allow Americans to stand up for their privacy rights:

Bill of Rights Guarantees, 1789​

The Bill of Rights proposed by James Madison includes the Fourth Amendment, describing an unspecified "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." It also includes the Ninth Amendment, which states that "[t]he enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This amendment, however, does not specifically mention a right to privacy.
...}

are you ever going to show me where in any legal document the right to privacy exist as a right or not??

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel MUST stop receiving all USA funds
SUBTOPIC: Authorizations
※→ Rigby5, et al,

I do not necessarily agree with your interpretation.

Section 8: Powers of Congress​

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Agreed, but the federal highway act of 1956 also needed a constitutional justification for it to be legal.
Just passing a bill does not make it legal necessarily.
And I would suggest the preamble, such as promoting domestic tranquility, defense, and promoting interstate commerce are all adequate legal justifications.

(REFERENCE)
.

.
(COMMENT)

But in this case, the National Interstate is part and parcel included in the Nation Defense category. President Eisenhower noticed, during his tenure as the Supreme Allied Commander, how instrumental the "Autobahn" system in Germany was. And it was obvious that the UN needed to upgrade the infrastructure to accomplish the rapid movement of men, materials, and supplies.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[surada]

I talk about the biblical land of Yehuda and Shomron. What the morons call 'west bank'

Sargon 2 settled four Arab tribes in Samaria.

 

[JGalt]

Sargon 2 settled four Arab tribes in Samaria.

What God gave to Abraham, no one else can possess.

 

[surada]

G

What God gave to Israel, no one else can possess.

View attachment 599591

God didn't give anything to Israel.

 

[JGalt]

G
God didn't give anything to Israel.

Post edited to "Abraham", not Israel.

What God promised to Abraham is Israel. God does not make frivolous promises.

 

[surada]

Post edited to "Abraham", not Israel.

What God promised to Abraham is Israel. God does not make frivolous promises.

. Abraham was probably a fictional character. .. and you all wrote your entitlement.

 

[JGalt]

. Abraham was probably a fictional character. .. and you all wrote your entitlement.

You're a fictional character. An anonymous nobody on some obscure internet discussion board. One who 2,000 years from now, will never be remembered.

God was, is, and always will be. And His promises to Israel will be fulfilled.

 

[Sixties Fan]

. Abraham was probably a fictional character. .. and you all wrote your entitlement.

The same would go to all other people's on the planet who consider their indigenous land given by a god or any other spirit.

Arabs would not be any different in believing that the land they came from , Arabia, was given to them by one ancient god or another.

Islam wants to believe that once Muslims conquer a land, that it is their forever.

Ideas come from some place.

All indigenous people have their idea of belonging on the land where their ancient history comes from.

Your early education about Jews is a sad one, to say the least.

Jews come from Judea.

Arabs come from Arabia

Even the Arabs know that.

 

[surada]

Ara

The same would go to all other people's on the planet who consider their indigenous land given by a god or any other spirit.

Arabs would not be any different in believing that the land they came, Arabia, from was given to them by one ancient god or another.

Islam wants to believe that once Muslims conquer a land, that it is their forever.

Ideas come from some place.

All indigenous people have their idea of belonging on the land where their ancient history comes from.

Your early education about Jews is a sad one, to say the least.

Jews come from Judea.

Arabs come from Arabia

Even the Arabs know that.

Arabs began migrating out of Arabia more than 10,000 years ago.. long before Islam or Judaism.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Ara
Arabs began migrating out of Arabia more than 10,000 years ago.. long before Islam or Judaism.

Tell a lie 10,000 times and one will believe it. That would be you.

There is no Archeological or historical record of it.

Arabs started lying about Jews and Judaism only after Islam was created. And that illness continues to this day.

 

[rylah]

Ara
Arabs began migrating out of Arabia more than 10,000 years ago.. long before Islam or Judaism.

There weren't Arabs until the late 9th century BCE.

And still remain the largest illiterate group on earth,
Arab supremacists are just greedy imperialist bafoons.

 

[JGalt]

Ara
Arabs began migrating out of Arabia more than 10,000 years ago.. long before Islam or Judaism.

Tough shit. Incas and Aztecs used to live in South and Central America, before the Spaniards came, too.

Use it or lose it.

 

[surada]

Tell a lie 10,000 times and one will believe it. That would be you.

There is no Archeological or historical record of it.

Arabs started lying about Jews and Judaism only after Islam was created. And that illness continues to this day.

There's plenty of archeological record. Further they didn't immigrate from Europe or Russia. They have always lived there.

 

[surada]

You're really ignorant.