So you support the idea of a representative democracy, but you do not think people should be allowed to review what the government is doing. That makes it pretty hard for people to choose who to vote for. If a candidate says they will increase funding for counterterrorism operations, and their opponent says they will decrease that funding, how do you think people will make a decision? How do you think people can vote against an ineffective counterterrorism program if they have no way of knowing that the program is effective?

No, we do not just select people who then learn how the government works. We select people who will carry out our will. If you want more funding for scientific research, you vote for someone who works to expand that funding. We need to know what the government is doing in order to have an effective vote. Your idea of representative democracy is a sham -- the government acting in secret is not compatible with any form of democracy. There are limited exceptions during times of war, but we are not at war (not formally), domestic surveillance is not in this category, and even military secrets are supposed to be declassified after some period of time (so that we can review past decisions).

Of course, you leave no room for ever declassifying details of the counterterrorism program in your argument. You openly admit that the "war on terror" will never end.

When even the criteria for targeting people is a secret, there is no balance being struck. All your talk about representative democracy and striking a balance is meaningless in the context of such secrecy. This is not an "extremist" position, it is just liberalism -- the same political philosophy on which America was based.