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

"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future. " Because I agree with this position stated by Louis Stokes I uphold the resolution that Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. Targeted Killings- An assassination is the targeted killing to murder (usually by a person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons, thus according to Meriam-Webster. The affirmative will advocate the value of security in today's debate. " Security is the safety of a state or organization against criminal activity such as terrorism, theft, or espionage. "To fully demonstrate the importance of the affirmative value, I offer the criterion of Protection. " Thus according to Webster. Protection is a person or thing that prevents someone or something from suffering harm or injury. Contention 1: Self Defense ----In order to protect our self against terrorism we need to attack before being attacked. Guiora 04 (Amos Guiora, Visiting Professor of Law and designated Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for Global Security, Law and Policy at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, CASE WESTERN RESERVE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, "Terrorism on Trial: Targeted Killing as Active Self-Defense", 2004,AL) Because the fight against terrorism takes place in what has been referred to as the "back alleys and dark shadows against an unseen enemy, " the State, in order to adequately defend itself, must be able to take the fight to the terrorist before the terrorist takes the fight to it. From experience gained over the years, it has become clear that the State must be able to act preemptively in order to either deter terrorists or, at the very least, prevent the terrorist act from taking place. By now, we have learned the price society pays if it is unable to prevent terrorist acts. The question that must be answered -- both from a legal and policy perspective -- is what tools should be given to the State to combat terrorism? 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). ----Targeted Killings is necessary for the safty of the people. Wijze 09,(Stephen Wijze, Senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of Manchester, CONTEMPORARY POLITICS, "Targeted killing: a ' dirty hands' analysis", Sept 2009, p. asp, AL) Finally, and perhaps most significantly, a DH analysis provides a more plausible characterization of our moral reality. The TK of Shehada is a case in point. An attempt to justify or condemn the TK of Shehada in a neater, less equivocal and less confusing account of our ethical obligations and culpabilities does so by doing violence to our moral sensibilities. It is more helpful and accurate to understand TK as an obligation arising from a duty of office to protect citizens, yet also accept that in so acting there was a very high moral cost. In short, a DH analysis reminds us that those 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. Contention 2 Terrorists ----Those who participate in terrorist acts are Guiora 04 (Amos Guiora, Visiting Professor of Law and designated Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for Global Security, Law and Policy at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, CASE WESTERN RESERVE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, "Terrorism on Trial: Targeted Killing as Active Self-Defense", 2004,AL) One of the critical questions that must be answered is whether suicide bombers and those involved in terrorist infrastructure are legitimate targets. If the answer is yes, then we must examine how they can be fought, given that they are not soldiers in the traditional sense of the word. In the present conflict, terrorists who take a direct role are viewed as combatants, albeit illegal combatants not entitled inter alia to POW status, but indeed legitimate targets. Furthermore, the legitimate target is not limited to the potential suicide bomber who, according to corroborated and reliable intelligence is "on his way" to carrying out a suicide bombing. Rather, the legitimate target is identified as a Palestinian that plays a significant role in the suicide bomber infrastructure; that is, "doers" and "senders" alike. ----Terrorist Impose Such Economical and moral costs that TK is warrented. Guiora 04 (Amos Guiora, Visiting Professor of Law and designated Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for Global Security, Law and Policy at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, CASE WESTERN RESERVE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, "Terrorism on Trial: Targeted Killing as Active Self-Defense", 2004,AL) The international law principle of military necessity is also relevant to an analysis of targeted killing; that is, that the terrorist targeted presents a serious threat to the public order. It is important to add as a caveat that terrorism does not threaten the existence of a State. Neither a particular attack undertaken by a terrorist nor a series of attacks will bring about the destruction of a State. As horrible as 9/11 was, the government of the U. S. was never at risk of collapsing. As horrific as the attacks Israel has suffered, the continued existence of the State has never been an issue. The bombing in Madrid, while clearly contributing to the defeat of the ruling Spanish government, did not and could not endanger the very existence of Spain. Such is the case with terrorist attacks throughout the world over the years. Nevertheless, terrorism does exact significant social, economic and political costs to which the State must respond. The issue is therefore to whom and how the State responds. The terrorists involved in suicide bombings undoubtedly present the most serious disturbance to public order (economy, daily life, public safety). Therefore, once these individuals are defined as legitimate targets and there are no alternatives, the military necessity test, which requires a need to protect or ensure public order, is clearly met. ----TK's are justified in the new age in the War on Terror. Patterson 05 (Eric Patterson, Associate Professor of Political Science at Vanguard University and Teresa Casale, Program Assistant on the California Stem Cell Program at the University of California, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE, "Targeting Terror: The Ethical and Practical Implications of Targeted Killing", 2005, p. asp War is terrible and should be avoided whenever possible. However, 9= 11 was a declaration of war against the United States. For the U. S. to defend its citizens by prosecuting a war against its terrorist attackers is entirely ethical. Similarly, whatever the merits of the Iraq war in 2003, few would deny that an early killing of Saddam Hussein would have most likely resulted in fewer battlefield and civilian deaths, and would have been an appropriate end for an infamous tyrant. Many thoughtful individuals have qualms about the morality of assassination policies. Without doubt: assassination is politically motivated murder. In contrast, targeted killing is the legitimate use of force against enemy combatants in unique and hostile settings. But targeted killing is appropriate only when a clear. declaration of intent is made and should be used only in overseas environments. This assumes that targeted killing will occur at the direction of legitimate authorities, not at the whim of private citizens.