For example using your last sentence "nd you moralizers lose your credibility by denying that other people have a valid right to protect their own existence. In other words, no one's right to exist takes precedence over your own. You have the right to kill anyone who endangers your existance, as does Rand.", I think you would have a hard time proving to me that the innocent people in Graendal's palace, in the Seanchan headquarters, or the camp followers of the Borderland Army were a threat to Rand's existence.

That is the whole issue with trying to justify the value of taking many innocent lives to destroy one, such as, Graendal's. In these cases, the collateral damage wasn't going to be limited to people that threatened Rand's existence.

In another sentence you say "The state or fate of one's soul is strictly a private matter, and irrelevant to the justification of their homicide.", but this makes no sense, because Rand, an outside agent, is making a decision that transgresses what you already assert to be "a private matter" - in this case, Rand himself justified their deaths in the book, yet you claim that this is irrelevant. The whole point of this post was whether Rand was justified yet the nature of the homicide in question makes the fate of their souls a crucial part of this justification. If he had used a fireball, then it would have been irrelevant. He used balefire, though, which directly acts on their souls. Thus the state and fate of these soul's in relation to the worth of killing Graendal need to be confronted.