When President Obama took office promising to uphold the rule of law and ensure that our counterterrorism policies were consistent with our Constitution and core principles, his most devoted supporters took that to mean he would reverse a host of the Bush administration's legal stances and counterterrorism practices. That has not been the case.

Mr. Obama has continued or allowed for preventive detentions, military commissions, renditions, aggressive financial data and intelligence collection, renewal of provisions of the Patriot Act, and the killing of al Qaeda operatives on the battlefield. Yes, the Obama administration rejected certain first-term Bush administration practices—like aggressive interrogation methods—but there has been fundamental continuity on most issues.

Most recently, Mr. Obama has defended in Europe the U.S. Treasury's once-controversial Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, requested additional authorities for the FBI to obtain electronic data via national security letters, and is relying more heavily on targeted, lethal operations in Afghanistan.

The fact that these practices began under the Bush administration does not mean that Mr. Obama has abandoned his pledge to restore the rule of law, despite accusations to the contrary. The rule of law is not a static set of procedures. Instead, in the national security context, it is the appropriate and constitutional legal framework that balances the safety of society with the rights of individuals.

The rule of law for detention, for example, is not defined by the criminal legal framework. In fact, America treats detention differently in different contexts, weighing the threat to society posed by the risk of release with the rights of the detained individual.

Under the laws of war, enemy combatants can be held indefinitely until the end of the conflict. Under U.S. immigration law, we hold thousands of individuals in civil detention, which is noncriminal custody. And just this May, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the civil confinement of sexual predators beyond the term of their criminal sentences.

Other countries adapt their democratic rule of law to diverse detention contexts. Australia permits indefinite detention of illegal immigrants who cannot be deported immediately. Prosecutorial magistrates in Spain and France can hold suspects in custody for years without trial. The British continue to debate the appropriate length of time to detain terrorist suspects before charging them.

Controversially, the Obama White House has concluded that preventive detention is necessary for some dangerous terrorists already in custody, and the military continues to capture combatants on the battlefield and hold them without trial.

Almost nine years after 9/11, the Obama administration must apply the rule of law to a security environment defined by novel terrorist threats and different theaters of battle. The security measures it relies on will need to be sustained and defended. The administration must push back against the notion that every deviation from criminal law enforcement represents the abandonment of the rule of law. As more U.S. citizens become radicalized or attempt to join al Qaeda, this challenge will become increasingly complicated.

Our national debate on the meaning of the rule of law is stuck in a false dichotomy—between a caricature of past policies that "abandoned the rule of law" and practices that adhere to criminal legal procedures. Instead, we should ask ourselves what kind of rule of law respects American principles while keeping Americans safe from today's national security threats.

Late last month the American Civil Liberties Union released a report decrying the Obama administration for "repudiat[ing] some of the Bush administration's most egregious national security policies but . . . institutionalizing others permanently into law, thereby creating a troubling 'new normal.'" Let's hope they're right. And let's hope the Obama administration has the courage to defend this "new normal" publicly as consistent with the rule of law.

Mr. Zarate, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the former deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism.