This theme is a very controversial one and there's lot of debate about it. Objectively, it is necessary that the people should give on some of their civil liberties, of course to a certain extent and to not be abused by the authorities, in order for the terrorist to be traced and stopped before they commit a terrorist attack. Lot of people are against this, as they are not very fond of having they privacy in the hands of the government, and that is understandable. Others are willing to give up full access to the government in order for the terrorist attacks to be prevented. The problem is that the terrorists are constantly using the newest methods to communicate, recruit, organize, so in order for the special services to be able to monitor things well, they have to intrude the privacy of the people to a certain degree, so unfortunately it seems to be a necessary method.
Answer:
Since the time of the ancient Greeks, both the theory and the practice of democracy have undergone profound changes, many of which have concerned the prevailing answers to questions 1 through 3 above. Thus, for thousands of years the kind of association in which democracy was practiced, the tribe or the city-state, was small enough to be suitable for some form of democracy by assembly, or “direct democracy.” Much later, beginning in the 18th century, as the typical association became the nation-state or country, direct democracy gave way to representative democracy—a transformation so sweeping that, from the perspective of a citizen of ancient Athens, the governments of gigantic associations such as France or the United States might not have appeared democratic at all. This change in turn entailed a new answer to question 3: Representative democracy would require a set of political institutions radically different from those of all earlier democracies.
Magellan was NOT murdered for trying to enslave natives. He was killed during a battle.
So B, C, and I'm pretty sure D, are correct.