IndexIntroductionQuestion DifficultyExamples of IncursionsConclusion“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both” . plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Introduction In the nearly sixteen years since September 11, 2001, the world has experienced a very different version of international relations, military action, and liberal democracy than the world experienced before this date. 9/11 and the subsequent so-called war on terrorism changed the way liberal democracy is put into practice. For many, the security offered by the state following this terrible terrorist attack is believed to have come at the cost of giving the freedom and privacy supposedly guaranteed by liberal democracy. For others, the security measures adopted by Western states are a necessary part of keeping society safe. But can democratic societies like Canada and the United States simultaneously have both security from terrorist threats and foreign nations and the privacy, liberties, and privacy afforded by liberal democracy? This is the main question that this discussion paper seeks to address. More specifically, the document addresses the question of whether or not the security measures adopted by Western democratic states such as Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States can be reconciled with the ideas and practices of liberal democracy. In response, the paper argues that these intrusions on freedom and privacy cannot be justified if the true nature of a liberal democracy in these countries is to be maintained. As Benjamin Franklin quotes, one cannot fully exchange freedom for security, even temporarily. , and expect to keep or recover it. While the measures taken by the governments mentioned above have not yet reached the point of a complete compromise of liberal democracy, the measures taken over the last fifteen years put these states and their respective societies at risk of losing both the security and freedom guaranteed by liberal democracy . liberal democracy. Using both specific examples of security measures that undermine the essence of liberal democracy and academic journal articles that discuss the topic, this discussion paper aims to support this thesis with substantial evidence and a clear line of logic. While certainly not exhaustive, this document constitutes the beginning of a broader discussion on the value of liberal democracy versus the need for security. Difficulty of the issue Evaluating military incursions, privacy intrusions, and the general change in legislation regarding the security and privacy of private citizens is not an easy task. As one scholar writes, “The wake of 9/11, the war on terrorism, “national security” practices, and the recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq together produce a complex set of questions about what to think, what to defend, and what to organize” (Brown, 2003, 1353). This was written right after the 2001 terrorist attack, and the issue hasn't gotten any easier in the years since. Given that the Western world appears no safer today than it did in the years preceding the September 11 attacks, one wonders whether the efforts of the last fifteen years have really been worth it. This more liberal sentiment is in contrast to another academic article, which states that “If an intuition apparently transcends currentpartisan grievance, is that the effort to protect America from terrorist attacks requires better intelligence” and that “intelligence services should gather more information and share it more widely” (Kreimer, 2004, 133). This statement also seems logical – after all, counterterrorism depends on intelligence. But at what cost did this intelligence come about? Yet another more recent newspaper article states that “Public access to government documents is essential for democratic self-government” (Cuillier & Piotrowski, 2009, 441). Luckily, this transparency is guaranteed to some extent by the Freedom of Information Act – but was it enough? Cases like those revealed by the now infamous Edward Snowden and Julian Assange make the answer to this question nebulous. The fact that many security measures adopted following 9/11 were supported by public opinion makes the issue even more difficult (Hetherington & Suhay, 2011). All these questions are not intended to further complicate the main issue of discussion: this article – instead they simply aim to show how difficult the question of security versus freedom and privacy can be, from a political, moral, personal and even philosophical point of view. Now that this has been established, the paper can move on to specific examples of how freedom and privacy have been compromised in the name of national security. Examples of Incursions The past fifteen years are filled with examples of how the war on terrorism has made inroads into the rights, privacy and freedoms of American, Canadian and European citizens. The most notable example is the infamous NSA program revealed by documents leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013, known as PRISM. The revelations contained in the documents reported thanks to Snowden have shaken the Western world and have certainly given voice to the debate on privacy and security. As one scholar puts it, “In 2013, Snowden's revelations served as a catalyst for some of the major ongoing issues. problems related to the Internet” (Salvo, 2015, np). Simply put, the PRISM program gave the U.S. National Security Agency access to “electronic communications data held by private companies” (Kuner, Cate, Millard, & Svantesson, 2013, 1). More specifically, the program allowed the NSA to acquire citizens' digital activity logs from companies like Facebook, Twitter, and even Google. Of course, the Obama administration was “quick to assure the American public that PRISM and similar surveillance systems are targeted only at non-Americans” (Kuner, Cate, Millard & Svantesson, 2013, 2). This has not stopped American citizens from being concerned about their privacy and has even raised suspicions in those outside the United States. The concern was further underlined by the fact that Snowden's leaked documents also revealed that nearly all telephone companies in the United States were providing their customers' phone records to the NSA. Not surprisingly, no legislative reform regarding these so-called security measures was seen until the last two months of this year. As the article cited above concludes: “A serious dialogue on all these issues is essential if fundamental rights – both to privacy and security – are to be protected and individuals everywhere are to have confidence in the rule of law” (Kuner, Cate, Millard & Svantesson, 2013, 3). In other words, American citizens and other citizens of liberal democracies must carefully consider the question of security versus privacy if their freedom is to be maintained. Another example of the security measures.