Legal Transparency as a National Security Strategy

This article will not offer a legal analysis or presume to take sides in the ongoing debate between the administration and its critics on legal positions regarding military and security issues. The basic assumption of this series of speeches asserted that such a discussion is unavoidable and even essential in any democratic country. The problem is that when it heats up, particularly in wartime, the debate is liable to frame the tension between security and values as an inevitable choice between them. Obama identified this “false choice” as an obstacle and vowed to work toward eliminating it. He did not foment a revolution in the administration’s legal positions for this purpose; instead, he redefined the ideological framework in which the public debate on these positions is conducted. The article will analyze this framework and explain why it has proven itself to be an effective means of bolstering security as well as the law and the values that the law represents. In conclusion, it proposes lessons to be learned and outlines directions for thought and action that are relevant for Israel.