Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

The highest value in today's debate is intent. It is solely the moral intent of an action that determines its rightness or wrongness, and the intent of a targeted killing is to take life without due process, which is against American Law, international law, and the Geneva Conventions, specifically article 4. Targeted killings are illegal, without exception, and in direct violation of international humanitarian law. Targeted killing is a word used to frame the debate in a pro-assassination way. Some other terms that are functionally equivalent to "targeted killing": "Assassination""Summary Execution""Pre-meditated Murder""Extrajudicial Killing"Pro sacrifices his own morals by espousing utilitarianism and targeted killings at the same time. When Shahade, a Palestinian terrorist, was killed by an Israeli one ton bomb in a densely populated neighborhood of Gaza City, fifteen people were killed, including his wife and 9 children. Fifty others required medical attention. By Pro's own admission, this was an immoral act.First, invading a civilian area inevitably leads to the deaths and injury of far more people, mostly innocent people, than careful use of targeted killing.Not true at all. The capture of Osama Bin Laden proves that we can invade, and capture a military target (the compound) without the deaths of multiple civilians. He wasn't killed because he was Osama Bin Laden, he was killed because he resisted arrest. American forces were able and willing to capture him.http://www.cbsnews.com...What is the authority to decide who is the target of assassination? If a Private is being shot at, he makes animmediate determination based on the right of self defense.If a blogger creates a web site with instructions on how to make a bomb in Arabic, is that author a valid target of targeted killing?Our study shows that the 288 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, including 5 in 2012, from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 1,741 and 2,712 individuals, of whom around 1,448 to 2,241 were described as militants in reliable press accounts. Thus, the true non-militant fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 17 percent. In 2010, it was more like five percent.*Pasted from <http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net...;I challenge Pro to reasonably demonstrate that in all 2,241 cases, the targeted killing was1.Necessary2.Proportional to the crime3. The Actual Target and not someone else by accident (distinction)4. Limited to the individual5. A valid military target As I seriously doubt Pro can, let's assume that he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all points in all 2,712 cases. That is the reason why we should not let any Government carry out a policy of targeted killings, because there is record of proof. Take away the famous cases like Osama Bin Laden and Al Aliki or whatever that dudes name is. What about the other 2,000 people where there hasn't even been a media trial? We know Osama was evil, what about the other 2,000 people the US Government has killed in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and other countries? What do we know about them? Nothing. If we give this "process" legal sanction, we are basically giving a Government the authority to kill anyone without trial as long as it is not on U.S. Soil. Is our morality based on Geography? Let's discuss the burden of proof. For which crimes should a targeted killing be applicable? Murder? Accessory to murder? Incitement?Exactly what burden is necessary to authorize lethal force? Is reasonable doubt enough to stop a mission? Probable cause? Clear and convincing? Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Beyond a shadow of a doubt?Without answers to these questions, a Government is just committing murder, claiming it is in the defense of the Nation, but not required to prove it. Without clear evidence and transparency in every case, which Governments have not offered to date, we can safely say, targeted killing is not morally permissible as a foreign policy tool.