Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

Since this is a Lincoln-Douglas type of debate I would ask that anyone reading this only vote if they are familiar with the structure of a Lincoln-Douglas case. MY CASE I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution: “Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.”Definitions:Targeted Killing - “Premeditated, preemptive, and deliberate killing of an individual or individuals known to represent a clear and present threat to the safety and security of a state through affiliation with terrorist groups or individuals[2]."Morally Permissible - Anything that is not morally prohibited. (Deni Elliott)Foreign Policy - the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states[3]Value: National Security is defined as, “The protection or the safety of a country’s secrets and its citizens[1]." National Security is the foremost moral obligation of National Governments. Nations need to do what is necessary, not only to ensure their own survival, but also to protect their citizens from threats. In order to achieve National Security, we need to eliminate terrorist threats.VC: Rule Utilitarianism. Specifically, George Berkeley’s Rule Utilitarianism. Berkeley characterizes morality as adhering to sets of moral rules. These rules are framed with respect to the good, or utility, of mankind. An example of such a rule is, “We ought to not steal from one another.” The clear evidence that Rule Utilitarianism is valid, is that a society based on such rules will have more utility, or happiness, than a society without such rules.Observation 1: The United Nations. The United Nations is a worldwide organization whose goal is to promote world peace and solve problems that challenge humanity. As of today, 193 sovereign nations are recognized by the United Nations. These Nations meet with each other to achieve consensus on solving global problems, and establishing International Law. The requirements for membership in the United Nations are laid out in Article 3 of the UN charter. Article 4 of the charter is as follows;"Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations[4]."What this means is that in order to be a participating nation in the UN, you are obligated to uphold the obligations laid out in the UN charter. Article 51 of the charter CLEARLY states; “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[5]." Observation 2: Doctrine of Double Effect. It can generally be agreed that it is morally permissible to combat and kill terrorist individuals, whether we are using targeted killing or not. It can also be generally agreed upon that is immoral to kill innocent civilians. What do we do when these two moral duties conflict with each other? We look to the Doctrine of Double Effect. The Doctrine of Double effect states that it is morally permissible to perform an act having two effects, one good and one evil, provided that the good, which is intended, outweighs the evil, which is merely foreseen. The good (which is the military objective) must be intended, and the evil (the innocent death(s) must be foreseen and not disproportionate to the good achieved. Contention 1: The risk of inaction. In situations where the citizens of a state are directly threatened, that nation has the right to defend themselves, immediately, or preemptively. Just as our actions have consequences, our in-actions also have consequences. The greater the threat posed by the foreign power, the greater becomes the risk of inaction. We can’t just sit idly by and allow imminent dangers to occur, we need to take action, and targeted killing is the morally permissible answer to this. Leaders have a moral obligation to protect their citizens from terrorist attacks. By eliminating a very small number of enemy combatants, states can save the lives of thousands of citizens and even soldiers. Targeted Killing, abides by Rule Utilitarianism, because it provides for the general utility of the majority and still abides by the self-defense principle laid out by the United Nations Charter.Contention 2: Terrorism.Targeted Killing is first and foremost, a last resort. It is only undertaken when arresting the target poses an unreasonable risk to the acting state. Targeted Killing is a military goal, not a political one. We are not clearly not talking about assassination here. When we are dealing with terrorists, diplomacy is simply not an option. Terrorists typically have extremist beliefs and will not listen to reason. Arresting the targets in question is not a viable option other because terrorists organizations are not sovereign states or nations. They have no defined territory and they don’t publicly identify themselves. They operate covertly in nations that are unaware of their presence, or more often, unable to do anything about their presence. Another thing that makes arrest problematic is the fact that terrorists consciously select tactics that make civilian deaths likely. Terrorists deliberately hide themselves and their bases of operation within civilian populations, thereby drawing unwilling and unsuspecting innocents into fighting. These terrorists attempt to multiply their strength by relying on the Humanitarian morals of the west to not harm civilians. Regardless of how we attempt to combat the terrorists, it will be a lose-lose situation for us. Rather than sending solders in and endangering multiple lives, it’s much more practical to engage in targeted killing by using drones which utilize precise missile strikes to engage ground targets.Contention 3: Targeted Killing is effective. The fact that targeted killing is an effective means of dealing with terrorist leaders is evidenced by the fact that Al Qaeda has been practically wiped out of its former strongholds in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistani officials report that the number of “high-value” Al Qaeda targets remaining in Pakistan has dwindled to a mere number of two[6]. Regardless of what my opponent argues here today, they cannot deny these results; Osama Bin Laden is dead, the core Al Qaeda network is near defeat, and the members that remain are scanning the sky for the metallic glints of the unmanned drones. Targeted Killing efficiently destroys the terrorist’s ability to wage war and inflict terror, while ensuring that collateral damage is kept to a minimum. It accomplishes the same military objectives as conventional war, without resorting to massive amounts of casualties. So in conclusion, Targeted Killing is morally permissible under Rule Utilitarianism. By its very nature, it is a more discriminating and humane means of self-defense than other, more conventional measures. Self-defense, which, once is again is permitted under the International Law laid out in the United Nations Charter and is necessary for the national security of a state.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources1)http://www.macmillandictionary.com...2)http://www.operationalstudies.com...3)http://www.merriam-webster.com...4)http://www.un.org...5)http://www.un.org...6)http://www.defence.pk...;