The pragmatism of the present rarely considers the lofty disapproval of the future as a factor worthy of consideration in matters of espionage, state security, etc.
Wrong or right using these resources was certainly in their best interest.
Wrong or right using these resources was certainly in their best interest.
In 1968, Mr. Hoover authorized the F.B.I. to wiretap a
left-wing journalist who wrote critical stories about
Nazis in America, internal records show.
On one hand, there's the act of not immediately burning potential useful allies for their (abominable racial) politics. On the other hand, there's the actions taken against political dissenters to protect those allies, actions that seem like one of those classic stacking the deck moves that gives notice to all good men that the Tree of Liberty might be looking a little thirsty.
Here in France the same principle prevailed: "better an ex-collaborator than a communist", with the difference that they were starving for managers (and it didn't go well for the resistants). So they didn't try an in-depth cleaning of the country which led to great disasters during the decolonization wars (tortures, mass executions, etc.)
They were quicker to shave the hair of women who slept with a german soldier than to hang a prefet who sent 1500 jews in a train and became Paris' police chief.
How is that (French here)? Maurice Papon, the man you are talking about, was responsible for the brutal repression of the demonstration ordered by FLN, which lead to hundred of dead people. However, given the climate at the time, it's not obvious that a different man in the same position wouldn't have acted the same way. As for claiming that the French army tortured in Indochina and Algeria due to a lack of denazification, that's plain silly. Many of the soldiers who took an active role in these crimes were former resistants (like Massu and Aussaresses).
this is why there are things defined like "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" and Nuremberg trial which affirmed the principle that "just carrying out the orders" and "a different man in the same position would have acted in the same way" isn't a valid defense at least in case of such heinous crimes.
You could make the same argument about women who slept with German soldiers, but they were punished in the streets while people with administrative skills were quietly excused. I don't know if nraynaud meant to focus on Papon per-se. I think he wanted to draw the sharp contrast between how those with skills were treated v.s. how we treated those who were of lesser value to the state.
Quoting from the article:
But many Nazi spies proved inept or worse, declassified
security reviews show. Some were deemed habitual liars,
confidence men or embezzlers, and a few even turned out to
be Soviet double agents, the records show.> The pragmatism of the present rarely considers the lofty disapproval of the future
I don't know the parent's true intentions, but I read this less as approval of their actions and more as a mournful observation about how few choices any of us really have.
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.