LD: Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

Firstly I would like to further elaborate on the definition of what is morally permissible, this is not a new definition but pros definition but into its original context "A moral system differentiates among behaviors that are morally prohibited, those that are morally permitted, those that are morally required, and those that are morally encouraged. .. . Permitted [means] behavior that is within the bounds of the moral system. It is morally permitted to act in any way that does not cause others unjustified harms. "[1] So by this definition it was morally prohibited to assassinate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi because in the Bombing a innocent women and child where harmed, so I argue that by Pros example does is not morally permissible by his definitions. [2]My second argument is again with Dennis Elliot's definition on the moral code, things are morally permissible that do not cause unjustified harm, or are morally prohibited. Murder and target killings are both morally prohibited in the moral code and by law. By carrying out Assassinations(I'm not a politically correct type of guy) we are overruling national Law, and international rule of law. In the fourth Geneva convention in Part I Article 3 section d "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. "[3] Also by the own law of the united states executive order 12333 signed by Ronald Reagan or Gerald R. Ford's Executive Order 11905. [4][5]Even in the most successfully cases of targeted killings we have something called Blow back, when Qaddafi was killed by rebels he met all 5 criteria pro has laid out, but this did not serve the greater good. Currently Libya instituted a strict religious rule of law and is currently set to separate into two different countries when it was once the most prosperous country in Africa. Did this act serve the common, good I say it doesn't did it save more lives? , I argue that it did not proving Pros point of the common good to be an idealistic fallacy. [6] Targeted Killings do not provide for the common good because blow back always happens history shows that toppling regimes by assassinations leads to more radical and harmful regimes. Similar to targeted killings are assassinations, I would like the audience to think did the assassination of Franz Ferdinand help the common good, Abraham Lincoln. I would also like the audience to consider this if our President was assassinated would we surrender or would it lead us to retaliate? Pro argues that in war Civilian deaths are morally permissible so that Assassinations must also be permissible because it lead to less civilian deaths. This is a false statement most civilian deaths are attributed to drone attacks carried out to killing Iraqi militants, If we stopped trying to killing military officials we would have less civilian casualties and would serve the common good. [6][7] There have been over 1.5 million Iraqi deaths since the invasion the majority from drone attacks does this seem morally permissible to you? [8]If Pro wants to argue on that of Logic and reason one needs to look no further in history where not one targeted killing meeting his criteria lead to that of the common good. I will post other rebuttals in next post because I am running low on time due to work. Sources. http://decorabilia.blogspot.com...( Quoted directly from Ethics in the first person by Denis Elliot). http://www.foxnews.com...The Fourth Geneva Convention. http://www.ford.utexas.edu...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...http://www.bostonglobe.com...http://antiwar.com...