Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

I affirm the resolution, Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. Definitions: Targeted Killing: According to Gary D. Solis, a Georgetown University Law professor, there are five things that must be in place for something to be considered a targeted killing. (http://bit.ly...) 1.An armed conflict must be in progress. 2.The target must be a specific individual. 3. The individual must have been beyond reasonable possibility of arrest. 4.The killing must have been authorized by a senior military officer. 5.The individual must have been directly participating in hostilities. Why we must look to my definition is because it provides a very specific checklist that allows us to identify situations that can be classified as targeted killings, making it possible to better classify a murder. Morality: the most important code of conduct put forward by a society and accepted by the members of that society. (http://plato.stanford.edu...) We must look to this definition because it allows for the fact that different cultures have different cultural assumptions. This is the best way to ensure that no one's moral code is ignored. Value Premise: Consequentalism; defined as "the view that normative properties depend only on consequences." Consequentalism is basically the idea that the ends justify the means. We must view the resolution through this value because it gives us a method to evaluate the whole process of targeted killing. Value Criterion: Utilitarianism; defined as "the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Princeton University)." Basically, Utilitarianism supports the action or policy that best supports the needs of the majority. Utilitarianism is the best Criterion for the round because it bests protects the lives of the majority, and thus fulfills Consequentalism. If we are achieving the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, then we can justify the means in which we are achieving that good. Contention One: Targeted killings are morally justifiable in armed conflicts. In normal circumstances, killing is considered immoral, but in war, killing is the normal. In society, killing is murder. During war, killing is a way of life. Calling a targeted killing immoral is simply irrational. For example, during a battle, the senior military officer in charge of a battalion points to the enemy commander, and says to his best sniper, "while that man is in command, we can't win the battle. Make sure you take him out." So the sniper does. That is a targeted killing because it fits all of our criteria. There is an armed conflict in progress, the target is a specific individual, the individual is beyond possibility of arrest, the killing was authorized by a senior military officer, and the individual was taking part in the hostilities. Yet, nobody would have any moral complaints about this targeted killing, because it took place in the middle of the battle and is therefore legitimate. Fernando R. Tesï¿½n, of Florida State University, in an article examining the arguments both for and against targeted killing, concludes that targeted killing can be morally justified when stringent conditions apply. These conditions include the state carrying out the killing being involved in a conflict, there are no feasible alternatives, and the target must be a villain, culpable of waging aggressive warfare or of threatening large amounts of people. If we look back to the definition of a targeted killing, the conditions that Tesï¿½n requires are indeed present in the definition of a targeted killing. Therefore, targeted killings in this debate, based on that definition, are morally justifiable. "Despite the possibility of collateral damage inflicted on civilians whom the terrorist leaders use as human shields, targeted assassination of terrorist leaders is less likely to harm innocents than most other strategies for combating terror and more likely to disrupt future terrorist operations," says Georgetown University law professor Ilya Somin. What this means is that, ultimately, targeted killing has a positive effect, saving lives of innocents who would otherwise die in the conventional way of combating terrorism, and disrupting future plans. Somin goes on, "That does not prove that it should be the only strategy we use, but it does mean that we should reject condemnations of it as somehow immoral." Somin confirms the idea that targeted killing is not immoral. Colonel Peter M. Cullen, of the United States Army, writes, "Provided targeted killing operations comply with the law of war, one can make a convincing argument that they are consistent with the just war tradition." So the question remains to be answered: what is the law of war? Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, writes, "In times of war, law-enforcement rules are supplemented by a more permissive set of rules: namely, international humanitarian law, which governs conduct during armed conflict. Under such "war rules," unlike during peacetime, an enemy combatant can be shot without warning (unless he or she is incapacitated, in custody, or trying to surrender), regardless of any imminent threat. If a combatant is captured, he or she can be held in custody until the end of the conflict, without any trial." The Law of War is that an enemy combatant can be shot without warning, and can be held captive without a trial. Isn't targeted killing shooting a specifically targeted enemy combatant without warning? Targeted killing is lawful, and according to McCullen, it is therefore a just war tradition. Through this, Consequentalism is achieved because we are protecting the lives of many innocents, as Ilya Somin explains, which, because it is good, in and of itself justifies the means, targeted killings. Utilitarianism is also achieved, because a larger number of people are living than are being killed, which achieves the greatest good for the greatest number. Most importantly though, we realize that targeted killings are morally justified as tools of foreign policy because of the positive effects that they produce. Contention Two: Targeted killing is a legal and effective foreign policy tool. Matthew C. Waxman, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Law and Foreign Policy on the Council for Foreign Relations, writes, "Lethal force directed against particular individuals outside a combat zone like Afghanistan is legally and strategically appropriate in limited circumstances." Waxman confirms that targeted killings are legal, and even "strategically appropriate." Waxmen continues, "As to strategy, lethal targeting is but one important tool in the counterterrorism arsenal." In the case of Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, the United States was attacked for using a predator drone to carry out the targeted killing. However, Avery Plaw, of the University of Massachussetts-Dartmouth Political Science Department, reports, "The US and many other states and legal experts have argued that the al-Harethi targeting was a legitimate exercise of self-defense under international law." Plaw goes on to say that many of the most influential scholars of humanitarian law defended the operation against al-Harethi and that the Israeli Supreme Court upheld in December 2006 the legality of targeted killings. Most influential scholars of humanitarian law defended the operation, meaning that the majority ruled it legal. Even more so, one of our ally's own Supreme Court upheld the use of targeted killing under certain circumstances. Killing a terrorist leader takes away the vitality of the movement, and takes away momentum. Daniel L. Byman, Professor at Georgetown University and Research Director of the Saban Center at Brookings Institution, explains, "Killing a leader like bin Laden removes a charismatic yet pragmatic leader--one who succeeded in transforming a small group into a household name. Vote in Affirmation