I said covert action is moral to protect the good. If covert action is used in this case to cover up the irresponsible, then it's not moral. Good vs irresponsible.
By the way, I'm not saying anyone was irresponsible in this case nor that any destruction of documents took place here, I'm simply defending my belief that covert action is moral when protecting the good from the not so good. We got some people here making possible false accusations on little evidence, making assumptions that may not be true. It could be that driving all day on a dusty road will kick up more fine particles than riding in a troop carrier on virgin landscape. Those of us that live in the country know the difference between driving an off-road vehicle on a dirt road that is well traveled and and has a thick layer of ground up dust on it from driving through a field that hasn't been ground down by high traffic. The difference in the amount of dust kicked up is exponential, the dust much more fine. We shouldn't condemn this CO until we know the facts surrounding the particulars of this case.