The ethical dilemma – conducting illegal activities in order to penetrate a target
for the purpose of accomplishing the mission. What issues are at play in the
McLaughlin article? In complying with the request, would the agent cross the
moral divide?
The moral divide is a very imaginative yet grey area, perhaps even a line
made of chalk which can be move and changed as it needs to be in order to
accomplish the mission.
The McLaughlin article discusses the problem one CIA officer faced when
trying to infiltrate a terrorist network. This officer was required to kill a
government official in order to prove his allegiance to the terrorist group. This for
many American is an easy answer, NO. As this particular scenario has is drawn,
the CIA officer would have to kill someone, which is morally and ethically wrong,
in order to gain access to a group that may or may not cause even more deaths
in the future of innocent people.
As an American, I can see this as a problem for the officer and for the
government, all of whom are required to be guided by a much higher ethical and
moral calling. To top this, the U.S. government complies with certain oversight
and compliance agencies and Congressional committees in order to monitor
activities within the Intelligence Community. These ensure that the American
moral or ethical calling is upheld. This officer would have crossed that moral
divide if he were actually given the ok to carry out whatever it took to get into the
terrorist network.
However, what those in the government and in the public must understand
is that not all people in this world follow the same level of morals or ethics
required by our government. As such, is it to far to comprehend the possibility
that our morals may be so far to high that we may have prevented ourselves from
actually being able to carry out future operations as those operations may
compromise these same morals and ethics. If so then where would that leave