Do the ends justify the means?

Usually, when some is kidnapped from his/her country by an organization affiliated with a different country, many world leaders (especially in the west) speak out against the situation or make threats against the country responsible until the person is returned. When Israel’s intelligence agency captured Eichmann from his home in Argentina, though, none of the prominent world leaders made any negative statements against the action taken (that I have heard of). This unusual response was probably because Eichmann’s capture was necessary for him to be tried for his horrendous crimes against humanity during World War II. This different reaction begs the question: Do the ends ever justify the means? What this question is really asking is if it is okay to do something that isn’t exactly the perfect thing to do if it means that something good will happen out of it. Personally, I believe that sometimes this is true. If there is no other way, or no other practical way to make the good thing happen (as in Eichmann’s case), AND if the end is better than the means is bad (again, as in Eichmann’s case), then the ends definitely justify the means. Otherwise, I don’t think it’s okay to do something bad even for a good reason. In Eichmann’s case, kidnapping Eichmann from his country was the only way to bring him to trial. Argentina wasn’t going to hand him over, because that country was a friend to ex-Nazis. And, Eichmann certainly wasn’t going to turn himself in, because he knew that he would almost certainly face death if he was ever put on trial. Also, Eichmann’s trial was better than his kidnapping was bad. Eichmann’s kidnapping didn’t really hurt anyone besides him, and maybe emotionally his family. But, because Eichmann’s rightful penalty was death, his family would be emotionally hurt anyways. Eichmann himself wasn’t even really physically hurt, and he was taken care of really well while in captivity, so it is my opinion that he got no less than he deserved.