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

http://debate-central.ncpa.org... My value in this debate is Kant's categorical imperative. My opponent's value is protection. I agree that the government has an obligation to defend and protect. I will advance two arguments. First, moral responsbility in twenty-first century warfare must apply on all terrain. Second, the national interest of protection is better served by rejecting targeted killings. **Part one: the Morality debate** Targeted killing doesn't fulfill Kant's categorical imperative. The categorical imperative cautions an actor that they should avoid performing any act to which they feel exclusively entitled. Targeted killings violate this and produce undesirable effects in both international and domestic decision-making. 1. International norms. Guiora, their primary author, is attempting to justify targeted killing under international law. His version of self-defense is built upon this ["What I term active self-defense would appear to be the most effective tool; that is, rather than wait for the actual armed attack to "occur" (Article 51), the State must be able to act anticipatorily (Caroline) against the non-State actor (not considered in Caroline).] This doesn't answer the question raised in our Byman evidence: Would the U.S. want targeted killings to become a widely used instrument? This would make our own military, officials and citizens more vulnerable. It also doesn't answer the question posed by our Waldron evidence. He asks: "What happens when a norm, N, becomes law? ... (W)e ought to consider for starters whether we are comfortable with N in the hands of our enemies." The categorical imperative requires the moral agent to make a decision divorced from their individual biases and formulations. Ask yourself this question: should targeted killings become an international norm? Russia claims to be victim of terror attacks, yet U.S. lawmakers decry the deaths of individuals like Magnitsky. The question is not whether the U.S. has good reason to perform these acts. The question is whether the U.S., the unquestioned global leader, wishes to set a precedent that its rivals can use to justify nefarious acts. Their moral standard must be objective, regardless of who the actor performing the action is. Their Patterson evidence says that there are democratic checks in place. This is why it is important to consider the use of targeted killings in less democratic states. The categorical imperative says morality must be weighed objective. There are three reasons why targeted killing cannot be carried out objectively, as noted by Retired U.S. Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman. Cultural distance, moral superiority and mechanical superiority ensure the disparate treatment of different groups. Take Holder's recent address (conducted on 3-5-12 @ Northwestern Law). He attempted to justify the targeted killing of 2 U.S. citizens in Yemen but made little attempt to justify the killing of others. I agree with Hasan in his argument that "this isn't complicated; there are no shades of grey here. Do we disapprove of car bombings and drive-by shootings, or not? Do we consistently condemn state-sponsored, extrajudicial killings as acts of pure terror, no matter where in the world, or on whose orders, they occur? Or do we shrug our shoulders, turn a blind eye and continue our descent into lawless barbarism?" 2. Democratic accountability. Their Wijze evidence says targeted killings must be carried out in open and accountable processes. Their Patterson evidence says "This assumes that targeted killing will occur at the direction of legitimate authorities, not at the whim of private citizens." There are several responses to these claims: First, the categorical imperative brings this into question: what happens when other, undemocratic actors want to practice targeted killings and cite the U.S. justifications under international law constrcuted by their Guiora evdience? Second, what of checks and balances? Does any publicly elected official beyond the President, in closed-door, unreported meetings with classified CIA and Justice Department officials, have any say in how these actions are carried out? Does the public have any opportunity to scrutinize the government's policy? Congress directs wars and wiretaps but not targeted killings. Third, this accepts open tyranny and shreds our most important democratic values. If they allow the unaccountable and opaque process of targeted killing to continue there is no power which we would deny our government. To again quote Hasan: "How many more of our values will we shred in the name of security? Once we have allowed our governments to order the killing of fellow citizens, fellow human beings, in secret, without oversight or accountability, what other powers will we dare deny them?" Part 2: The Ability to Protect. Their first contention is self-defense. First, self-defense is a moral justifiation, not a moral duty. I do not question self-defense as a justified action available to an actor under threat. The question is whether targeted killing provides the best defense. If it doesn't it is morally indefensible. I will prove targeted killings are worse for fulfilling national defense interests below. Targeted killing is not a moral duty, but one option to consider. It is neither the most effective nor the most moral option. Their Wijze evidence agrees with this framing: "(T)hose who support and carry out such a policy must be aware of the high moral costs. The hope is that this realization will provide a further reason to refrain from so acting unless there really is no viable alternative." I will prove that other, more effective options exist, which means there is no reason to pay what Wijze calls "high moral costs." I have also answered this argument extensively above. Their view of self-defense doesn't fulfill the categorical imperative because we would deny the use of targeted killings in other circumstances to other actors. If it *does* fulfill the categorical imperative it justifies the use of targeted kililng by other undemocatic actors and creates a terribly dangerous international norm. Their second contention is terrorism. I agree with Guiora that "terrorism does exact significant social, economic and political costs to which the State must respond." Again, that's not what I'm disputing. What is in dispute is what the most effective and moral response to terror is, not whether terrorism is bad and justifies a response. I have provided five reasons why targeted killings hurt more innocent people than they protect: First, intelligence is the most important factor in warfare. All the weaponry in the world is worthless if it is operated by actors who can't adequately learn about plots in advance and prepare. Byman weighs this issue well by noting that: "After an arrest, security forces can interrogate the suspect and learn about future plots and additional operatives, who can then be arrested too. Killing suspects prevents them from striking, but dead men also tell no tales." Second, targeted killings murder innocent civilians. They are by definition ineffective: if the strike is too large then innocent civilians will be killed, but if the strike is too small then the targets may escape. Moreover, the death of innocent civilians robs the operation of credibility and acts as a rallying cry to perform more attacks (more on this below). Third, targeted killing often encourages retaliation and more innocent death. The groups that are targeted often "up the stakes in horrific ways when subjected to a targeted-killing campaign" (Byman, 2006). Fourth, targeted killings make martyrs of the victims, which catalyze the movements they represent. Finally, targeted killings make peace negotiations impossible, as it is incredibly difficult to broker a mutual cease-fire while the policy of targeted killing remains on the table (Byman, 2006).