Was it morally wrong for the CIA to use a false immunization campaign in Pakistan in order to verify Bin Laden's exact whereabouts?
Asked by
ibstubro (
18804
)
May 20th, 2014
Source
I find this troubling because I remember hearing that countries were against vaccinating children because there were rumors that it was a plot. Now it seems there was a plot, and it’s come to light.
Was nailing down the exact position of a mass murderer worth the risk that millions of children my die because they weren’t immunized? Badly needed health care workers killed.
Rumor
Additional info
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
16 Answers
It’s immoral to take evidence from people without their consent.
But this is the CIA we’re talking about here. Plus, only white Americans have rights.
The list of CIA wrongdoings are numerous and appalling. I’m going to go with a definite “yes” on morally wrong for the false immunization campaign.
Some of the CIA’s legacy of dishonor:
Operation MOCKINGBIRD
Operation PAPERCLIP
MK-ULTRA
Orchestrating the “Banana Wars”
Operation PHOENIX
Operation CHAOS
and on and on and on….......
If they even did get Bin Laden.
The vaccines they received were fake? I would think if it was all fake it would be rather obvious after a point.
Perhaps they immunized, @LDRSHIP. Was the ruse warranted?
BFD. It was worth it. If parents are now overly suspicious and not allowing their kids to be immunized, they are exactly the same as many American parents who are listening to bad advice from people like Michelle Bachman and Jenny McCarthy.
Yes, it was morally wrong. It was wrong of them to use a health program to collect intelligence. It was wrong of them to violate the sovereignty of an allied country. It was wrong of them to kill Bin Laden without a trial, when they clearly had the manpower to arrest him. It was wrong of them to celebrate his murder like some grotesque national holiday.
BUT countries do not act on moral grounds, whatever they say. They operate based on the principles of statecraft. And that’s not a bad thing. A state that acted by a moral code rather than the principles of statecraft would quickly crumble.
It was wrong of them to claim they had killed Laden and offer no proof of having done so.
It was a REALLY BIG f&*kup, and classic demonstration of ends justifying means. It only served to validate the agency’s already sucky reputation.
If the question involves the words “morally wrong” and the name “CIA” then the answer is probably always “yes”.
It was a DISASTER…. and it led to Humanitarian teams being wiped out!
What was the alternative? Let Osama hide in plain sight for another 10 years?
I’m pretty sure that half of what the CIA is involved in, at any given time, is morally wrong or questionable. This is one government agency that has one of the most sordid histories of any U.S. agency.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
