[Bush2000]

Is the taking of innocent life always wrong or isn't it?

There is no simple answer for that question -- and if you expect one, you're engaging in nothing more than sophistry and sleight-of-hand. Let's suppose, for example, that an airline flight carrying innocent civilian passengers is hijacked and headed for the White House. The President is forced to make a horrible decision: Shoot the plane down (and thereby kill innocent civilians) or let the plane crash (and possibly kill even more innocent civilians). There are countless other examples which illustrate this simple principle: Sometimes, it is necessary to take life in order to preserve it.

[Demidog]

There is no simple answer for that question

Yes. There is a simple answer. Unless you want to argue that it is perfectly OK to murder in which case you'd have to explain why every state has murder laws. Your scenario is one of self-defense. I wouldn't agree that it would be OK to shoot down that airplane unless it was a known fact that the plane was to be used as a weapon. In which case, if the passengers were unarmed due to the fact that the government had demanded they be disarmed, thus taking away their right to defend themselves, the government would be guilty of murder.