I applaud Professor Nachbar's impulse to avoid national confusion by carefully d efining abstract principles.

But he fails, and in failing, only adds to the con fusion by missing the point, to wit: it is not the term "justice" which must be carefully defined, but rather it is the proper identification of the contexts in which the term is used. In order to understand legal principles it is almost always necessary first to r efer to philosophical principles. Without a firm grounding in Philosophy, none of the Sciences or Humanities can long remain rationally integrated. The curren t discussion by Professor Nachbar is a case in point. He discusses legalistic j ustice, which is too narrow for the issue he is dealing with, which is explicitl y the issue of national security (impicitly, the issue of war). Nachbar discusses four abstractions in his article; principles, justice, violenc e and security. But the context in which he discusses them is not clearly defin ed. Is he speaking in the context of domestic law? If so, he is incorrect beca use that context is too narrow for this discussion. The context must be that of the ideological war Islam is waging against the morality of Western, Secular In dividualism. Philosophically, justice is a subset of the principle of honesty. Honesty is a principle defined as an unbending dedication to identifying the facts of reality , and further, to act ONLY upon the facts one identifies. Justice is the applic ation of honesty to judging the actions of men. Principles, philosophically, ar e guides to moral action. Violence is the application of destructive levels of force against property and individuals. Finally, security is a value which, in order to be achieved on a national level, may require violent reprisals against enemy combatants. Such reprisals may be considered "just" when security require s such acts be performed in self-defense of a nation which has been violently a ttacked, as the United States was attacked by Osama Bin Laden's proxies on 9/11/ 2001. In this broader context, "justice" is the proper term for the violent de ath visited upon the Islamist warmonger, Bin Laden, by U.S. Navy SEALS this past week. It is only by evading this broader context that Geoffrey Robertson can make the absurd assertion that soldiers should be arrested for attacking their enemies by stealth. This evasion of proper context is the source of confusion, not applic ation of the term, justice. The context of war is broader than the context of d omestic legality, and requires broader applications of the principles involved. Justice for a domestic crime requires due process under the law. Justice for an act of war requires retaliatory acts of war. Domestic security and national se curity are vastly different contexts, and are achieved by the same principles of justice and force applied in vastly different ways.