Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool against terrorism

“Days will prove that the assassination policy will not finish the Hamas. Hamas leaders wish to be martyrs and are not scared of death. Jihad will continue and the resistance will continue until we have victory, or we will be martyrs,” because I agree with this position state Ahmend Yassin I deny the resolution is Targeted Killing a morally permissible foreign policy tool. The Negative will advocate the value of Justice- The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law according to the freedictionary online. To support my value I offer the citation of Prevention of Collateral Damage. Collateral Damage according to Merriam Webster dictionary online, it refers to the inadvertatent casualties and destruction in civilian areas in the course of military operations. There are 2 independent justifications for the negative position in today’s debate. Contention 1: Targeted Killings Backfire 1/2 ----Targeted Killings are ineffective. Patterson 05 (Eric Patterson, Associate Professor of Political Science at Vanguard University and Teresa Casale, Program Assistant on the California Stem Cell Program at the University of California, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE, "Targeting Terror: The Ethical and Practical Implications of Targeted Killing", 2005, p. asp, AL) The second broad category of arguments against state-sponsored assassination is pragmatic in nature. One such argument is that assassination is simply impractical, with numerous reasons as to why this is so: assassination attempts have a high failure rate; are almost impossible to keep secret (at least after the fact); and the results aresimply unpredictable. For instance, the successful "knock-off" of a foreign leader may result in a cult of martyrdom and conservative policies by the ruling elite that are the exact opposite of the intended effect. A second pragmatic argument against assassination concerns how others will react. Terrorist networks and rogue states are likely to respond in kind to attempts against the lives of their leaders. For instance, in response to the decapitation attempt on Saddam Hussein in 2003 Jason Vest argued that, at best, it would exacerbate the conflict; at worst, it would result in assassination' s return as a tool of policy in international affairs. Chalmers Johnson made a similar claim about world opinion -- targeted strikes against individual terrorists would be seen as "thuggish" behavior and turn international public opinion against the United States. ----Targeted Killings kill innocent People. Stein 03(Yael Stein, Research Director at the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, "By Any Name Illegal and Immoral", Vol. 17 No. 1, 2003, p. asp, AL) David claimsthis policy is not only legal, but also just and moral. Although the policy "raises disturbing moral issues, . . . "he writes, "if it is carried out strictly against combatants in the legal sense outlined above, [the policy]can be defended from a moral perspective" (p. 121). As I showed, the policy is illegal and unjustifiable in legal terms. According to David' s own assertion, then, it cannot be considered moral either. David bases his argument on the "just war tradition, " namely, if the killings are discriminate and proportionate, using only "enough force" to accomplish the task, causing no more destruction than they prevent, and directed only against those that pose the danger, it is moral. The assassination policy, however, does not meet these conditions. About a third of the people killed in the course of these attacks so far have been innocent bystanders, according to the army' s own admission. A good example is the killing of the Hamas official Salah Shahada, carried out in Gaza on July 22, 2002. Israel killed Shahada, his assistant, and thirteen other Palestinians, ten of them minors, including two infants. The one-ton bombdropped on the house caused extensive damage to the area. Although this is unquestionably the extreme instance ofthis policy, it is also a natural consequence of having adopted it in the first place. Contention 1: Targeted Killings Backfire 2/2 ----Terrorism destroys the mindset to end the war on Terror. Blum and Heymann 10(Gabriella Blum and Philip Heymann, Assistant Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, HARVARD NATIONAL SECURITY JOURNAL, "Law and Policy of Targeted Killing", June 27, 2010, accessed 2.4.2012: http://www.law.upenn.edu..., AL) The political message flowing from the use of targeted killings may be harmful to the attacking country' s interest, as it emphasizes the disparity in power between the parties and reinforces popular support for the terrorists, who are seen as a David fighting Goliath. Moreover, by resorting to military force rather than to law enforcement, targeted killings might strengthen the sense of legitimacy of terrorist operations, which are sometimes viewed as the only viable option for the weak to fight against a powerful empire. If collateral damage to civilians accompanies targetedkillings, this, too, may bolster support for what seems like the just cause of the terrorists, at the same time as itweakens domestic support for fighting the terrorists. Contention 2: Collateral Damage 1/2 ----Backlash and Collateral Damage from TK outweights the benefits. Patterson 05(Eric Patterson, Associate Professor of Political Science at Vanguard University and Teresa Casale, Program Assistant on the California Stem Cell Program at the University of California, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE, "Targeting Terror: The Ethical and Practical Implications of Targeted Killing", 2005, p. asp, AL) Even a successful targeted killing can have negative consequences. For example, the target may become a martyr idolized in death, inspiring a new generation of radicals to take up arms against the U.S. Similarly, the successful attack on al-Harithi resulted in five other deaths, including that of an American. In that case, those in proximity of the attack were apparently al-Qaeda members and therefore combatants. But what if they had been al-Harithi' s wife and children? Israel' s assassination of Hamas founder Sheik Yassin is a case in point -- in addition to eliminating the "target, " the blast killed numerous civilian bystanders, including children. Undoubtedly, successful operations can come at too high a price in civilian casualties and collateral damage, not to mention the negative effects of world opinion. Contention 2: Collateral Damage 2/2 ----TK’s are self defeating the terrorists are just replaced. Blum and Heymann 10(Gabriella Blum and Philip Heymann, Assistant Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, HARVARD NATIONAL SECURITY JOURNAL, "Law and Policy of Targeted Killing", June 27, 2010, accessed 2.4.2012: http://www.law.upenn.edu..., AL) An immediate consequence of eliminating leaders of terrorist organizations will sometimes be what may be called the Hydra effect, the rise of more -- and more resolute -- leaders to replace them. The decapitating of the organization may also invite retaliation by the other members and followers of the organization. Thus, when Israel assassinated Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah' s leader in Lebanon, in 1992, a more charismatic and successful leader, Hassan Nassrallah, succeeded Mussawi. The armed group then avenged the assassination of its former leader in two separate attacks, blowing up Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires, killing over a hundred people and injuring hundreds more.