Andy, I agree with much of your post. To clarify (I hope!): Yes, people who are entrusted with the authority to keep the public safe have a moral obligation to use all licit means of performing that task. Yes, the perceived necessity and just purpose of a coercive act are elements of the justification of that act–and can suffice to justify some acts that would not be justified in their absence. Your example of caging someone in isolation is a good one on this point. So no, I don’t mean to dismiss the importance of context. Rather, I am making two narrower points: first, that these elements are not always sufficient to justify a coercive act; second, that the central tradition of just-war theorizing holds as much.