There are also good reasons to argue that the US is not democratic: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
The NSA does have democratic oversight. It is controlled by the executive, legislative and judicative branches of the system. That this control is inadequate in our view, doesn't matter for the question whether or not the NSA is part of a democratic system.
It absolutely matters. Without those controls you have a democracy in name only. You could quite happily rig elections, arrest opponents, suppress the population etc, while still claiming to be 'democratic'.
There is nothing undemocratic about those thing as long as a majority of people agree to them - though with rigged elections, you might not be democratic for very much longer. "Democracy" is not synonymous with "respecting my values and human rights."
If enough Americans were sufficiently upset about the NSA, it would be gone. They aren't. It's not even a significant election issue.
That requires that people are informed and able to comprehend the ramifications of their choices. Consider this: Is it still democratic if those who happen to be in charge are busy lying to and hoodwinking a poorly informed 'electorate'?
As for the rest of your comment, it is not democracy simply because a majority agree it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
In short, it really looks like some parts of the US government actively work to keep reporting very favorable or non-existent.
edit - This also makes sense from looking at the word. Democracy is rule by the 'demos', which means 'the people', which includes the minority. Rule by the majority is ochlocracy, from 'ochlos', meaning 'the mob'.
Are we sure of that? Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold lost his re-election bid. He was the only Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act in 2001.
Colorado Senator Mark Udall lost his 2012 re-election campaign after being a total gadfly in the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee.
It strikes me that the NSA is a significant election issue, just not to the voters.
Also, you're kind of arguing about a technicality in the definition of "democratic". Our elected reps often act un-democratically. I hope this is to prevent tyranny of the majority, but I fear that it's just legislative capture.
You've just managed to explain quite succinctly why it isn't a significant election issue.
----
"Congressional oversight of the NSA is a joke. I should know, I'm in Congress" by Alan Grayson
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/25/nsa-no-...
----
A minor quibble, but governments don't provide freedoms and liberties. They restrict them. Hence the word "govern" and its etymology.
Looking back at history, I vastly prefer the balance of liberty afforded by strong governments in the western world to the lack of such control.
Looking back at history, strong governments have been THE source of oppression and limitations of freedoms.
You may be able to defend yourself against your neighbor. What about women and children? What about against multiple aggressors, or ones with better weapons? Turns out, without an effective police force, liberties are distributed a lot less equally...
Steve Pinker explained in a TED talk that hunter/gatherer societies are a lot more violent than modern societies. For example these groups have to launch preemptive attacks against neighbors if only for fear of the other group striking first.
Pro tip: when disagreeing with someone on a philosophical point, it's good form to leave "you" statements out of the debate.
Good day, sir.
[citation needed]
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php
https://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world
The U.S. is not exactly at the top in all such comparisons, but certainly "as good or better than most other countries."