The only way to combat such a scenario would be to encourage large domestic support for all liberty, thereby ensuring majority protection in a democratic society. But, if the free citizens become complacent and indifferent to their liberty, they become easily persuadable. Worse yet, if these citizens are coerced to embrace the loss of their liberty, all hope is lost.
Therefore, all that is needed to initiate the collapse of freedom is to influence certain domestic movements. Foreign enemies found this opportunity soon after George W. Bush took office. On and after September 11th 2001, the United States was attacked by enemies, foreign and domestic. While it is no surprise that there exist enemies of liberty worldwide, it was unexpected that such people lived everywhere in the United States.
As it turns out, terrorists were not the only people who hated freedom, they found their largest ally within their target. Under an authoritarian president, the liberty of Americans was not only left undefended, but willingly sacrificed. Regardless as to whether or not increases in government power actually make people safer, liberty is the victim of such measures nonetheless. By terrorizing Americans, foreign enemies were able to trigger a domestic movement focused on heightened security and future prevention. Such initiatives made a collective safety a higher priority than individual liberties.
Even though it was the foreign enemies that initially terrorized Americans, it was Bush’s role to ensure continual paranoia. Using scare tactics, a frightened majority was coerced to believe additional security was a necessity. Fear mongering was employed so successfully, Bush was able to attain support for any initiative by simply dramatizing a potential imminent threat. From there on out, Americans were continually tormented to ensure they complied with a security-first agenda.
Americans were unjustly asked to trade their freedoms, rights, privacy, and liberty, all for security. In a truly free society, such a trade is outright unacceptable, and should never be burdened upon the citizen, or even considered an option. If the precedent of a majority relinquishing the liberty of the entire citizenry is established, that society may still be democratic, but is no longer free. Instead, that society is subject to the will of a mob-rule.
Simply stating that increased security measures may deter or prevent another attack is not a legal argument to allow such actions. A tyranny created by a majority, albeit democratic, is a tyranny nonetheless. In the United States, individual liberties are suppose to be Constitutionally protected, not subject to majority change, or popular interpretation. The collective authority cannot deprive any person of their liberty, no matter how imminent an attack may be.