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

Lets do this LD style :D I just copied my constructive so bear with some of the grammar as it should be read aloud. Round 1) Constructive (Neg with first rebuttle at end) Round 2) Aff and Neg Rebuttle Round 3) Aff rebuttle, no neg (you the end of first round, I didn't) In the world of international relations and foreign policy, perfect justice cannot exist. Though it would be ideal to be able to capture and try terrorists in a court of law, this is simply not possible. Instead, in a world of organized terror, we must pursue national security through policies that actually work. Because targeted killing is a critical tool in the fight against terrorism, I affirm: Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. For clarity, I offer the following definitions: According to Nils Mezler, an oxford professor, Targeted Killing is "The use of lethal force by a nation with the intent, premeditation and deliberation to kill individually selected persons who are not in the custody of those targeting them." Morally permissible: to meet some baseline requirement of morality. In other words, for something to be morally permissible, it does not necessarily have to be the best course of action or a moral duty, but must only be not immoral. Foreign policy: the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states. The debate must focus on the idea of targeted killing itself, not how it has been misused. We are talking about the process not examples of how it has been misused. Another way to think about it: many unjust wars have been fought throughout the ages. But this does not mean that war is not morally permissible as a foreign policy tool. The same reasoning can be applied here. Though there are certainly a few instances where it has been misused, there are also times when it is by far the most effective and most appropriate response to a crisis. That said; my core value for today will be Kant's categorical imperative. Kant states that the outcome of a situation does not dictate whether or not an action is morally permissible. He says that the reason or motivation to do an action dictates whether it is morally permissible or not. Within the context of a nation's foreign policy, the single most important motivation for targeted killing is national security. National security should be a government's primary concern because without security there can be no rights or liberty. Contention 1: The rise of terror has made traditional war obsolete The most important reason that countries like the United States and Israel have turned to new policies, such as targeted killing, is to the problems of the new world. Terrorism. In his report "Targeted Killing", Professor Daniel Statman of the University of Haifa (hi-fa) in Israel explains this: "Tanks, jets, and submarines are helpful when confronting other tanks, jets, and submarines, not hijackers carrying knives or terrorists wearing explosive belts." That is how war has always been. If one country gets weapon A, another country will get weapon a plus. Why should this normal act not apply to the modern war of termism? Nation's must adapt to combat the new threat of hijackers and terrorists. Targeted killing has only emerged as a response to terrorism. The new form of armed conflict, terrorism, requires a unique solution. Contention 2: Targeted killing has had an extremely high rate of success in the war on terror. a. Against terrorism, counter offensive measures make sense By definition, terrorism shifts the front lines away from the battlefield to the home front, where a defensive policy is difficult if not impossible. In response to such attacks, the only strategy that makes sense is one that neutralizes the attacker before they have a chance to attack. To paraphrase Steven David, professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University: Terrorism is an offensive attack, which leads to battles on the home front. Targeted killing is just a defensive measure, for protecting the home land. In such situations, the best response to terrorism is to go on a counter-offensive, that is, to eliminate the terrorist threat before it can be launched. b. Targeted killing cripples terror organizations The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the effectiveness of a policy of targeted killing against terror groups. For example, according to the article "Do Targeted Killings Work?" by Daniel Byman of Georgetown University, Israeli targeted killings severely disrupted the ability of Hamas to carry out attacks: "The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (mipt) reports that in 2005, only 21 Israeli civilians died at the hands of Hamas—down from 67 in 2004, 45 in 2003, and 185 in 2002" Meaning, when targeted killing was employed as a policy, the number of lives that terrorists took dropped by 88 percent over three years. Clearly, the killings we're employed properly and saved the lives of many, at the expense of one or two. Contrary to popular myth, the number of skilled terrorists is quite limited. Bomb makers, terrorism trainers, forgers, recruiters, and terrorist leaders are scarce; they need many months, if not years. When these individuals are arrested or killed, their organizations are disrupted. The groups may still be able to attract recruits, but lacking expertise, these new recruits will not pose the same kind of threat. Contention 3: Under Kantian (Kant-ean) ethics, targeted killing is morally permissible. We all could say killing is not morally permissible, and yes I'd agree with that statement too. But, when you include a reason why, then you can certainly change the validity of an argument under Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. Kant says a claim is not dependent on the outcome, but rather the initiative and motivation for such action. Such as killing someone for talking would not be morally permissible since they can talk. Yet, the killing of a man who murdered people in the past, and are going to continue to murder innocent people is morally permissible only since the goal is to pursue justice and peace. The same logic should be applied today. The goal of the targeted killing is to purse national security and keep the rights and liberties of many and that is indeed morally permissible. So simply stating that killing its self is bad is not a valid argument under Kantian ethics. Nevertheless, in terms of self-defense situations where a state's population is threatened by violence, the state has the right and obligation to protect the population against such threats and in so doing may use lethal force in certain situations. "Even if this implies depriving people of their lives […]"Self-defense is still a right, just now in the form of a large body of people.