Following the terrorist September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, and subsequent terrorist incidents around the world, national security has become a primary concern for all governments. The measures adopted to maintain national security in the face of threats to society has in turn led to ongoing dialectic, particularly in liberal democracies, on the appropriate scale and role of authority in matters of civil and human rights.

Public discourse on these issues has highlighted the tension that exists between the preservation of the state (by maintaining self-determination and sovereignty) and the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Although national security measures are imposed to protect society as a whole, such measures will necessarily tend to restrict the rights and freedoms of all individuals in society. The concern is that where the exercise of national security laws and powers is not subject to good governance, the rule of law, and strict checks and balances, there is a risk that "national security" may simply serve as a pretext for suppressing unfavorable political and social views. Taken to its logical conclusion, this view contends that measures which may ostensibly serve a national security purpose (such as mass surveillance, and censorship of mass media), could ultimately lead to an Orwellian dystopia.

The debate also raises questions about whether national security is ultimately weakened by the diversion of public sector funds away from basic services such as education, health care, disaster relief and emergency preparedness, and into national security measures and programs.

In the United States, the controversial USA Patriot Act has brought some of these issues to the attention of even the average citizen. The debate raises the question, "To what extent, for the sake of national security, should individual rights and freedoms be restricted?", or "can the restriction of civil rights for the sake of national security be justified?".