Two wrongs don't make it right.

I have heard it on the radio from inflammatory broadcasters; I have heard it on the TV from clueless talking heads; and now I’ve heard it from the president himself. The logic goes like this: There is no way to compare the actions of the United States to those of inhuman terrorists who murder innocent people. Implied in that premise is the notion that anyone who disagrees with it is not patriotic, or is a terrorist sympathizer.

So, once that premise is established, the next line of reasoning goes prematurely to a conclusion: Therefore, America is justified in passing legislation that circumvents the Geneva Conventions in order to allow its CIA interrogators to engage in extreme forms of physical and psychological interrogation — translated torture.

Here’s an example from the president’s press conference today:

Q: Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?

BUSH: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic

It's just - I simply can't accept that.

It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective. [THE PREMISE]

… This enemy has struck us and they want to strike us again. And we'll give our folks the tools [extreme measures, or torture] necessary to protect the country. That's our job. [THE CONCLUSION]

That premise/conclusion didactic is then followed-up — or maybe even preceded — with a series of statements, unsubstantiated by absolute proof (excused in order to protect vital secrets), but presented as indisputable facts because they are uttered by a person of presumed or actual authority (in this case, the president). These statements are carefully crafted and designed to play on emotions to such an effect that they distract the listener from the nature of the false argument they support.  

Following are examples of these emotional-trigger statements from the president’s press conference:

Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al-Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland

By giving us information about terrorist plans we couldn't get anywhere else, this program has saved innocent lives. In other words, it's vital.

You’ve heard other versions of this false-logic argument recast in countless media forums recently, no doubt. One strain, for example, contends that there is no comparison between the murderous tendencies of Muslims and the always-peaceful intentions of “Christians,” that it is the Muslims around the world who commit the vast preponderance of the terrorism — and the few abortion clinic bombings and physician slayings carried out in this country by extremist anti-abortion Christians can’t be compared to Islamic-influenced terrorism.

From that premise, we are then taken to a variety of extreme conclusions, such as a call for racial profiling or even “nuking Iran.”

But simple logic tells us the premise side of this recently unveiled election-year extremist political polemic does not lead to the conclusion.

Morality, by any definition, is not relative. In fact, isn’t that the big dig that extremists on the right put on "liberals," that their agenda is corrupted with moral relativism? But it is precisely the strategy — moral relativism — that is used to propel the arguments now being used to justify torture and to vilify the Islamic religion overall.

The point here is to deconstruct the invective. How many immoral deeds does it take to make a person, or a country, immoral?

Asked another way, playing on an old Beatles lyric, “How many holes does it take to fill the Albert Hall?”

The answer, of course, is one and an infinite number — but they are all holes; in the case of this analogy, holes in our morality — whether we torture one person, 100 people, or a thousand people; whether we kill one person; or 3,000 people; or hundreds of thousands of people.

Once we cross that threshold (of justifying, rather than regretting, even one immoral deed) talk of a relative moral separation is illogical — unless we believe one person’s life is worth more than another person’s life.

So, the next time you hear an extremist argue for an immoral act to counter a greater immoral act, remind him or her of the age-old horse sense that I’m sure you’re mom told you years ago:

Two wrongs don't make it right.

And, should they be beyond their mother’s counsel — and argue through emotional statements that all our lives are at stake unless we act immorally — tell them to open up the Good Book, instead of hiding behind it, and read about the ultimate conclusion of their argument, lest they heed the Good Book’s advice:

Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. — Jesus Christ