I think I'm interpreting the parent's intentions the same as you -- but I was hoping that quote would stand alone to challenge efficacy of those choices (rather

I think I'm interpreting the parent's intentions the same as you -- but I was hoping that quote would stand alone to challenge efficacy of those choices (rather than their morality). The rest of this comment is just my speculation/justification for why moral considerations might make for more effective policies than "pragmatic" ones. I think that (there's a reasonable chance) the security agencies did themselves (by which I mean American society) more harm by acquiring flawed assets than the cost of waiting to develop appropriate assets on their own. It's the same general problem as security theater -- a system that focuses on "doing something", rather than making a principled understanding of the costs/benefits and trying to optimize some security tradeoff. One reason principles are great is because they (are supposed to) act as commitment devices that keep you from doing some tempting, short-term thing, and keep your actions in line with your longer term goals.