edit: In the end, it is reasonable to assume we do not have adequate data on the successes of these programs. 2 paths then arise. 1) Then you wait for more data. 2) You examine those people that you reasonably know to have access and take a look at their moral history and actions to determine the ethical issues; it's the only somewhat good data you can add to the set to maybe get a conclusion.

You do not need data to make a moral argument based upon principle. There is no conjecture involved. (You could read some Kant on this, if you like.) You need data only to determine a particular consequentialist ethics that involves a balance of good and bad outcomes often understood in lay terms as "effectiveness." I think most commenters here would agree that effectiveness is the wrong way to evaluate this system, since epistemologically we cannot know its effectiveness. (... Although many doubt it could ever be truly effective in the presence of creative adversaries.) We can only know that is it categorically wrong.

The issue with this idea is that it is a tautology. You can neither prove it nor deny it from the outside where the public sits. You simply do not have the access to the data and cannot reveal it. Those that have pay a heavy price.

What then? You have to take Occam's razor, that the simplest explanation is the correct one. Combine this with Hanlon's razor to not attribute to conspiracy what you can reasonably contribute to stupidity, and you may have an answer that passes the sniff test.