Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

kentuck

(115,370 posts)

3. Stop giving the secret information to a select few in the House and Senate.

Reply to JaneyVee (Original post)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 08:57 PM

Jun 2013

Give it to them all so they can represent the people, rather than the MIC...and do away with secret courts. I would trust the whole Senate and House to do the proper thing. I don't trust a select few who act like they are in possession of something special...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What would be the best alternative plan to balance privacy & National security? [View all] JaneyVee Jun 2013 OP

quit going around the planet murdering people to support american corporations nt msongs Jun 2013 #1

I agree, ending all wars would be a great first step. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #5

That is the answer, in a simple, easy to understand sentence. RC Jun 2013 #12

Government spies who work directly for the government. DCKit Jun 2013 #2

How would the spying aspect work without surveillance? JaneyVee Jun 2013 #7

Is the concept of spying lost on you dear? Seriously? DCKit Jun 2013 #9

That's what I'm asking YOU, what do you mean by old school? (I'm 31yrs old) JaneyVee Jun 2013 #10

James Bond stuff. Paid directly by the government. DCKit Jun 2013 #11

Stop giving the secret information to a select few in the House and Senate. kentuck Jun 2013 #3

there are many people not interested in solutions treestar Jun 2013 #4

I actually think their current 'total surveillance' approach is worse than a more narrow focus. reformist2 Jun 2013 #6

But who would they focus on? Wouldn't it essentially be racial profiling? JaneyVee Jun 2013 #8