Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post

I agree, that is the rub, and I'm not sure what to do about it. I don't think that responding in kind is the answer. Outside of the fact that it is unethical (in Dr. Jack's terms, "immoral" in mine) and illegal, I also think that such actions have a tendency to "degrade" the individual who conducts them ("unethical" in my terms).
To determine what is "moral" there are different ethical approaches; I generally use three broad categories of ethics --

Principles, based on Kant's writings and the concept that one should not act according to the consequences of an action, but instead according to agreed-upon or settled values and principles (such as the rule of law).

Consequences, based on J.S. Mills' writings and the concept that one should act based on the likely consequences or results of the actions; The utility of an action, or how that action produces happiness, is “the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions” according to Mill.

Virtues, based on Aristotle's writings and not on “what one should do” but rather “what kind of person should one be?” Good character, or virtues, is central to virtue theory.

From a broad brush approach, Ralph Peters has taken a consequences approach -- just do what it takes to get the job done because the outcome makes it worthwhile (the ends justify the means).

GEN Petraeus, in his letter to MNF-I, indicates a sensitivity to all three approaches. He states that torture is illegal (a principles approach based on the rule of law); that such actions are frequently neither useful nor necessary (consequences approach); and that we "must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat detainees with dignity and respect" (virtues approach).