But imagine a less one-sided scenario: You have the job of national security, with the presumption that $HUGE_NUMBER of lives are impacted. You have a medical

But imagine a less one-sided scenario: You have the job of national security, with the presumption that $HUGE_NUMBER of lives are impacted. You have a medical aid group allegedly doing something good. But you know they could be a cover for a force trying to do something that would threaten that $HUGE_NUMBER. There's a cost-benefit analysis that goes into deciding how much of an obstacle you put up in front of said group. It might be minor, such as checking credentials, or posting a dedicated solider/analyst/guide to keep track of things, or scheduling delays, or perhaps denying/delaying access to different areas. There are a lot of ways to respond that aren't on the "kill doctors" side of your example and yet still impair the $GOOD_DEED. To avoid such debates, It makes sense on both a humanitarian level as well as a public moral-high-ground marketing level to have a line you don't cross even when an individual case looks to justify it. <Insert MIB speech about there's always a crisis here>