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

Morality cannot be justified as a single principle and defined as the same thing for all individuals. Morality is based on the premise of perspective. "We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses." -Abraham Lincoln. Perspective is one's point of view, what one sees, others may not. Morality is similar to perspective. What one may find to be bad or good, others may not. Your statement that says "Your questions are irrelevant as is your sense of morality" is false. Allow me to put you into perspective. First I'd like to apologize for not previously numbering my questions. I will do my best to defend the relevance of my questions by numbering them in the order of which they are listed above. 1. In the United States, the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Thus stating that in The United States (One country that uses foreign Policy) All human beings have the right to a public trial. A person that is targeted and killed would not have the luxury of a public trial. 2, 3, 4, and 5 (The ones talking about telling a joke) My point is that sometimes people take credit for things that they didn't exactly make or create or even execute themselves to make he/she look superior or very powerful. This COULD have been the case with Osama Bin Laden, now, I'm not saying it is, I'm simply stating it is a possibility and will we ever know for sure? Probably not, The United States did not allow a public trial in the district the crime shall have been committed. 5 and 6 (The ones about learning from your mistakes) Mistakes are made. How do we learn from them? Just don't repeat the same harmful action twice. 7, 8, 9 and 10 (Isoroku Yamamoto) Isoroku Yamamoto was the Japanese Admiral that led the attacks on Pearl Harbor. He was targeted and killed. He is definitely relevant to this debate. 11 (freedom of press) Could Osama Bin Laden been killed on nothing more than just media hype? Possibly. In the United States, people have freedom of speech, but most people choose not to publish stories that would make them look like an invalid source of information. Such as Newspapers or News Networks. 12. "Unalienable Rights" Comes straight from the Declaration of Independence. Basically Unalienable Rights are the premise that the rights that you or any individual for that matter are not given by a government, but rather by a Superior Being (A superior being could be defined as a God). 13. If you are for Targeted Killing, you are giving permission to kill based on any threat to you. Hiring people to Target Kill is no different than hiring a hit-man. Giving permission to morally kill is no different than saying that it's okay to kill no matter who it is or for what reason. 14. The Presidential Replacement System is an example of where leaders of our nation were killed an INSTANTLY replaced by another person. My argument here is that Al Qaeda is no different. Assuming that Osama Bin Laden was a leader of some sort, upon death he would be replaced instantly by another person. Therefore killing him was not only immoral, due to lack of accomplishing anything, and pretty much pointless. In debate all points should be taken into consideration for their relevance, just because a point isn't direct on the case, doesn't mean it doesn't apply.