Double Agents and Dirty Hands

Weeks ago, we learned of a simple yet complex metaphor called the "Dirty Hands" problem, which basically questioned whether immoral actions used for the general greater good are justifiable in how much benefit we receive in the end versus the extent of immoral-ness the person must confront. We can see how the "Dirty Hands" issue can attract a lot of attention and debate in real life situations we face, and personally I find that the same concept is just as interesting and awe-inspiring in the media we see. Usually in the media, the concept itself is most prevalent in the hands of "double agents" (defined as those who pretend to be part of the evil organization, but are really working for the good or vice-versa) and is accompanied with plot twists and surprises to make the whole scene much more dramatic, but nevertheless it achieves a whole new level of excitement for viewers; the questioning of morals and actions in given situations generates similar feelings of tension and urgency anyone facing a "dirty hands" problem would undergo. So where in the media have I seen "dirty hands"? I would give you an answer with my top 2 examples: Snape and Splinter Cell.

Since Harry Potter is relatively popular, I will warn that there are spoilers ahead in order to explain the connection between this and the problem. In essence, Snape was portrayed for 6 whole books as what seems to be a  blatantly evil person who was working for the Death Eaters and Voldemort, who are the Wizardry world's enemies. It is not until the last, 7th book that it is revealed he was working for the good side all along because of the motive that he felt guilty for Lily's death and that he was a part of the Death Eaters. So how is this the "dirty hands" problem? We must realize that if Snape had to maintain his reputation with the evil side, he must prove that he is committed to their cause, and thus must antagonize their enemies who are basically the general good Wizards. There are many examples of what he did in this sense, but a prime example would be where Snape kills the Wizardry school's headmaster, Dumbledore. It is ironic because Dumbledore was one of Snape's "allies" all along; however, Snape had to "dirty his hands" and commit an immoral cause for a greater cause that was part of a prophecy for a better end. Snape, as a "double agent" must have had to question his actions during his undercover work, comparing the good that comes out of the immoral bad he puts into play. Unsurprisingly, this was one of the elements in the series that appealed to many fans because of how sudden and powerful effect of the plot twist, which was based off of the "dirty hands" problem.
Below is a clip (which also somewhat contains spoilers) that reveals Snape's motive of being a "double agent", which in turn revealed all of the implicit moral vs immoral decisions for a greater cause that Snape must have had to question during his involvement in the plot.

Even in video games, the "dirty hands" problem can exist. (I apologize ahead of time for those of you who are not video game fans, but this example is highly relevant in terms of the issue as well). This time, the background is that of an spy named Sam Fisher who works for an agency named "NSA" which is well known for undercover operations in the game's context. Initially, the agency purposefully sets him up with multiple crimes to send him into jail in order to inspect a jailmate who is part of an uprising terrorist organization called John Brown's Army (or JBA) that has increasing activity, befriend him, and infiltrate their organization as a terrorist and yet feed info to the NSA. Gamers are provided with the options to be more evil or more good, but must maintain a minimum level of trust with both sides to be able to progress through the whole game. Regardless what side you may take, Fisher is still placed into situations that exercise the "dirty hands problem"; these range from planting a bomb and whether or not you choose to secretly defuse it, or if you choose between executing JBA's enemies (which may or may not be against the NSA) or complete objectives in infiltration for the NSA. Of course, it's just a game, but real "double agents" like Sam would have to deal with the issue of killing innocent people including people on the good side that he works for. Sure in the end he defeats the terrorists as an awesome outcome, but how much betrayal, guilt, and immoral actions did he have to face? It is this level of intensity and urgency that makes the game appealing to its fans, because we see examples of "dirty hands" that double agents may face and the flexibility in choice makes the game worth playing many times.
Below is a video of an execution Fisher is ordered to deal with, which obviously will affect his trust between both sides. The owner of the video shows both scenarios whether or not you choose to kill the civilian, which allows us to compare the two outcomes. The first half of the video shows Fisher killing the civilian, and notice how he gains trust with the JBA for showing commitment and preserving reputation and loses trust with the NSA for committing an immoral crime. On the other hand in the second half of the video when Fisher does not kill the civilian, notice how Fisher gains trust with the NSA for following orders to not harm civilians, but loses trust with the JBA for suspicion against their cause. It's a choice, a "dirty hands" choice.

Sources
Pictures: http://www.photosshow.com/splinter-cell-double-agent/
             http://www.scifinow.co.uk/blog/severus-snape-voted-favourite-character-from-harry-potter-books/

Videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MngJG8MNuA
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkNbq_tluZ0