Now and again we find via the Web a piece so smart that it changes the way we look at things.

Such as this one over at Slate by Thomas Nachbar on the emerging assertions that Bin Laden was ‘assassinated’ or even ‘executed’ by the Americans.

Read the whole thing, as it delivers in a few subtle paragraphs many profound insights on key legal and moral principles around which our very society is based. Such as this:

Our principles are our way of making sense of the impossibly difficult questions that arise when we join the fight against ideological extremists whose only objective is to kill as many Americans as possible.

Making sense of the messy world through the lens of our principles is no easy task, though. Enemies do not present themselves in clearly defined categories ready for logical, pre-determined responses.

We have to take circumstances and opponents as they come. The stakes are high and the pressure is on. Like a high-school math student nearing the end of an exam, there is considerable temptation to skip to the answer without showing one’s work.

But skipping to the answer—even if it’s as appealing as a terrorist killed or captured—is always a mistake, because it’s the work, and not the answer, that separates the president of the United States from the head of a particularly large and well-organized mob…

And above all this next passage, which insists that the issue of ‘justice’ for Bin Laden does not arise in the confusing form it is now arising, not least in President Obama’s original announcement of the successful raid ("Justice has been done"):

By virtually any account of the law of war, Osama Bin Laden was a valid military target, and as far as we can tell from the news accounts, this was a military mission undertaken by a military unit.

To require that military units can use lethal force only in self-defense is not only a complete misunderstanding of the law of war (under whose auspices the SEALs were operating); it would subject our servicemembers to intolerable risk and cripple our nation’s ability to defend itself.

Understanding the distinction between security and justice is not just a limit to protect against overreaching by security agencies; it’s also a protection for our armed forces as they carry out their lawful mission to defend our national security.

The point, folks, is that different principles apply in different cases. Which is, of course, as Nachbar himself points out, not an argument for a moral free-for-all once war is declared or prisoners are taken.

Glenn Reynolds:

That two way relationship between security and justice is very astute, and not one that I had focused on. Yet there is a part in the opening of the article with which I don’t fully agree, though it is easily the most persuasive of the critiques of “justice” in the killing of OBL – and I’ve spent a lot of time reading unpersuasive ones in the last week. It is the version of the argument that requires real analytic engagement, the one that I believe sets the terms of debate.

The deep philosophical and moral question here, one that goes to the heart of “sides” in war; the bonds of affection and the fiduciary use of violence that is for the protection of a political community – what Tom calls the question of security – and yet is also a question of justice; and how one reconciles justice and partiality.

Aren’t we lucky that we can share these insights so easily these days? And that despite the best efforts of evil people like Bin Laden to close down our civilisation we remain open-minded and ready to do so? To the extent of worrying somewhat whether a man who killed thousands of people deserves some ‘justice’?

Actually, it’s not about luck. It’s about defending ourselves in a principled way, which requires young men and women to risk their lives far from home for the rest of us.

And it’s about delivering justice where and when we can, even if it comes rather late in life for some people.