doing evil to obtain good?

It's their creed.

TW

What's the definition of evil?

IMO, it's hard to justify wire taps and torture when you claim to be the leader of the free world and the champion of human rights. We bash China and place embargos on Cuba, but if we don't set the example, how do we have the right to dictate policy to other nations?

That being said, I'm not so naive to think that sometimes it necessary, probably. But it has to be metted out with a lot of forethought and soul searching to determine if the benefit justifies the action. Glad I don't have to make those decisions.

Well that post is about to launch a new direction for the thread, but to respond to the OP I'll say this:

Using the ends to justify the means is a path to ruin.  When there is a choice (and that part is important), there is a "right" way, we all know it.  Usually doing things the right way, whether in your personal life, at work, or as the leader of a country is hard.  "Right" is not supposed to equal "easy".  It is right regardless of whether it is easy or hard.  Mcnamara was wrong. 

By no means do I think myself infallible, but I am probably a little too idealistically self-righteous for my own good.  I've learned to live with it.

In modern language, these rules hold that to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of forceJus ad bellum)

• Just Cause: Force may be used only to correct a grave publicevil (e.g. a massive violation of the basic rights of wholepopulations) or in defense;
• Comparative Justice: While there may be rights and wrongs onall sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use offorce, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweighthat suffered by the other;
• Legitimate Authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
• Right Intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose; Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain is not.
• Probability of Success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
• Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.[2]
• Last Resort: force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.

Certainly not. Hence my question on the definition of evil. I think infringing on the Constitution is evil. I aloso think torture is evil. Are they the same evil? Probably not.

I'm not sure what you mean by "OK."

We're a nation of laws (supposedly). Let me state the obvious: the POTUS is not above the law. We may forgive POTUS for overstepping his/her boundaries but does that mean it should be a blanket "OK" thing to do? Don't think so. POTUS, in my opinion, is not wiser or more Solomon-like than the guys who put the rules together 220 years ago.

If POTUS wants more powers, thinks he needs these powers to be an effective Commander-In-Chief, then POTUS should go about campaigning for those powers, obtaining those powers in a lawful manner.

I don't know nearly enough about the wiretapping issue but I have a simplistic hypothetical question.  If an illegal wire tap could be used to detect and prevent a terrorist attact would people agree that is justified?  Or is there absolutely no justification for an illegal wire tap?  And why are people so strongly opposed to the wire taps?  Is it because they fear for errosion of rights?  I am interested in more information and opinions so I can understand this better.

I'm okay with being vexed. I'm okay with a debate. I'm okay with a Constitutional showdown. That's all about following a process with the implication that TPTB (the powers that be) believe in the rule of impersonal law.

I'm not okay with silence on the matter, being told it's unpatriotic to question, being given vague, mumbled reasons for where the POTUS derives his questionable authority.

BINGO!!!  You nailed it on the head, for me.  Tapping phone lines doesn't really show up on my radar as inherently evil, it depends on the circumstances.  Rendering our constitution ineffectual by sneaking around and hiding behind a smokescreen is the real problem. 

And for the record you are hearing from a card-carrying-raised-all-my-life-as-a-republican who is embarrassed at many of the things currently happening.

I think(and it pains me to do so) the key word here is perceived powers.  Different people have different perceptions.  Evil means different things to different people as well.  I don't even like the term evil as it has been used here.  Instead of thinking of it as "doing evil to abtain good", I think of it as "good sometimes has a cost".  Like anything else, what is too high a cost for the desired good will differs from person to person.  What might be an acceptable cost of good to me may not be to the next person.  There is a big stink going on here in Dallas right now because they are putting in surveillance cameras around the city.  The ACLU is raising a stink that it is infringing on the rights of the citizens.  To me, that is rediculous and I am willing to accept this cost(knowing I may be on video if in downtown Dallas) for the desired good(safer streets in downtown Dallas).

Hence the term necessary evil.