When you have secret laws that protect secret proceedings or as we actually have now, agencies that operate in a legal black hole and are completely unaccountable then yes, the idea that this is somehow a democracy is comical.
Just because one part of an organisation does not have a particular property, it does not negate that property for all other parts. The USA and UK are, quite obviously, democracies. There are free and fair secret elections for government in which anyone can vote, and anyone can stand for election as a candidate. That makes them democracies, the behaviour of their secret intelligence services is irrelevant.
I worry about the thought processes that must occur for people to think this; or similar things, like conflating an instance of some law enforcement department abusing its power with a totalitarian police state... I understand hyperbole as a rhetorical device, but it isn't helpful when assumed as fact.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one.
Lobbying and uncapped campaign donations are tantamount to legalised bribery. The system is utterly corrupt.
Free they may be, but calling them fair is a gross misrepresentation in my opinion.
> I worry about the thought processes that must occur for people to think this; or similar things, like conflating an instance of some law enforcement department abusing its power with a totalitarian police state.
We're not saying it's a police state. We're saying it is becoming one because of the very tools that these agencies possess and abuse without accountability.
As an example, you've basically had a man (a criminal) James Clapper lie directly to congress knowingly and unabashedly. He's somehow still walking around, free and lol'ing at the general public he so joyously likes to mislead and scaremonger.
> I worry about the thought processes that must occur for people to think this; or similar things.
I honestly think the same of people who think that there is no problem here, nothing to worry about or even that it's a good thing. I honestly can't wrap my head around the immense wilfull ignorance some people seem to be displaying.
> We're not saying it's a police state. We're saying it is becoming one because of the very tools that these agencies possess and abuse without accountability
Right, this is my problem. I have no problem with posession of these tools. States possess much worse things, nuclear weapons spring to mind. And abuse of these tools in an unaccountable fashion is wrong, 100% with you on that. However it is not clear to me that such abuses have occurred, or are occurring in a systematic way. Are there any documented (to the extent possible) cases of this? I didn't think even the Snowden documents showed that. In fact, it looked like they were full of caveats about US and UK citizen surveillance being a problematic area, and stated requirements for legal reviews and checks in these cases?
As grkvlt has said, this isn't a black or white issue. We're not either a) a democracy or b) not a democracy, we're obviously more democratic in some areas and less so in others.
I agree that having secret proceedings, etc., is a big problem. But there are cases where they're necessary, or at least many people think so. Like it or not, changing the way things work now means gaining some things (e.g. more freedom, more transparency) but potentially giving some things up (some measure of security).
Some people might be willing to give up different measures of freedom for different measures of security - others will have different numbers. That's why, in a democracy, we either convince people or compromise with them.
Say you were born in 1850, but had the understanding about race and slavery that you do now. Slavery makes you angry (I'm assuming here) and you make an impassioned post about the evils of slavery. In reply you get, "We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern."
Is it "sad that it makes you 'angry' that some people simply disagree with you"? Is it ok to dismiss your anger because you don't "stand for election"?
I think if I were born in 1850, the right thing to do would be to try and convince other people of why I'm right about race and slavery.
Yes, part of democracy is accepting that some people will disagree with you. The right way to go is to either compromise or to convince them you're right. Incidentally, that's what actually happens most of the time.