Though they break the supposed universality of the standards of liberalism all the time anyway without admitting it, liberal-democratic states also tend to have formal mechanisms whereby in situations they define as emergencies they can temporarily and explicitly set aside some of their rules about process and democracy and individual liberty and so on. In Canada, it has historically happened by the government of the day invoking the War Measures Act.
It blew my mind yesterday to read that between 1914 and 1970, a period of 56 years, the War Measures Act was in force a whopping 40% of the time.
Now, a commenter could try to go through all of those years and point out that X made it acceptable at this time while Y made it acceptable at that time and then we could argue about each instance, but stand back a minute and think about it in its entirety. What does it say about liberal-democratic capitalism as a way of organizing our lives that, even though these standards of due process and democracy and individual liberty are so central to its claims to legitimacy, setting some of them aside in an open and formal way was so routine over such a large period of time? It doesn't say anything very complimentary, I don't think. Especially when you consider the role that dominant social relations played in creating some if not all of the crises to which the state was responding with the War Measures Act.
And, again, I want to emphasize that this is completely leaving aside all the nastiness inherent to liberalism as a matter of course but generally denied or ignored by liberals...this is open violations of their own standards of liberty and democracy, formally acknowledged and endorsed over almost half of a period of more than five decades!
[This fact was discovered in Myrna Kostash, Long Way From Home: The Story of the Sixties Generation in Canada, Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 1980, p. 238. She in turn cites Richard Fidler, RCMP: The Real Subversives, Toronto: Vanguard, 1978, p. 15.]