Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool.

My case is in the link below. https://docs.google.com...Pro CaseTo avoid redundancy, I offer the following objection to which I will commonly refer to through my refutation of pro’s case. Objection: What is legal is not necessarily moral. The pro case is centered on a legal framework as opposed to a moral framework. This approach is flawed for several reasons. First of all, laws are subject to change. Ralph Emerson writes; “The law is only a memorandum. We are superstitious, and esteem the statute somewhat: so much life as it has in the character of living men is its force. The statute stands there to say, Yesterday we agreed so and so, but how feel ye this article to-day? Our statute is a currency which we stamp with our own portrait: it soon becomes unrecognizable, and in process of time will return to the mint.” [1]Laws may be subject to change, but morality is not. Furthermore, in a Democracy, the country is theoretically ruled by the people. Thus, it logically follows that those people dictate what is and is not legal. It is a bandwagon fallacy to say that just because the majority wishes something, it is right. Secondly, laws can be unjust. At one point in time, slavery was legal in America. If legal = moral then that must mean that slavery was moral at that point in time. However, we know that this is not true. Slavery never was, nor has it ever been moral. The idea that something can be considered moral just because it is or was legal clearly fails. Now, moving on to pro’s actual case. Value: Justice.My opponent is valuing justice...which is great, but what does that even mean? Justice for whom? Justice for the victims? Justice for governments? Justice for all? Furthermore, how do we determine the standards of justice? Is there a non-arbitrary way to make a distinction between what is just and unjust? Finally, and most importantly, what does justice have to do with morality? The pro is affirming that targeted killing is morally permissible, but on what grounds can she do that without a moral framework? With no moral framework to go off of, we must resort to the one I have provided: consequentialism.Value Criterion: Due Process.The problem with this criterion is that different countries have different legal systems and therefore, different standards for due process. Who’s Due Process are we using? Additionally, this criterion is adequately refuted by my Objection. Contention 1: Due Process and Human Rights."Law enforcement permits targeted killing where necessary to prevent a person from posing an imminent threat of death or serious injury to others...”Law enforcement may permit targeted killing, but that has absolutely nothing do with morality permitting targeted killing. Where is the connection to morality? “However, to be one who is permitted to kill, a combatant, one must yet fulfill four conditions: (a) they are commanded by responsible authority; (b) they wear a fixed, distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; (c) they carry their arms openly; and (d) they comport with the laws and customs of war.”If they do not meet all four conditions, then they can not be legally targeted and killed. Let’s examine these four conditions closely to see if terrorists fit the bill: A) This depends on how you define “responsible,” but I will give you this oneB) Terrorists obviously don’t have uniforms. If they did, the war on terrorism probably would have ended a long time ago. Rather, they use covert tactics and attempt to blend into the civilian populace. C) Refer to B) D) Terrorists aren’t exactly the most reasonable types of people. They aren’t associated with any sovereign states and they don’t obey laws or customs of war of any sort. From this we can reasonably deduce that it is not legal to target and kill terrorists. So then who are we even targeting and killing? Contention 2: Regardless of damage, the intentions are moral. On what grounds can you say that good intentions make something moral? By looking at the intentions as opposed to the consequences, it seems as if pro is delving into deontology here, but I don’t see how that connects to a legal framework at all. If pro really is a deontologist, then surely they would not be willing to throw Human Rights out the window in the name of fighting terrorism.Contention 3: Reciprocity First of all, if we refer back to my opponents argument about the four legal conditions one must meet to be killed, then we can deduce that it is not legal to kill terrorists, and therefore pro’s legal framework can not affirm this resolution. My objection also applies to this contention.For these reasons, I strongly urge a con vote. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources1)http://www.alcott.net...2) http://www.operationalstudies.com...;