Resolved: The United States Federal Government should Terminate All Foreign Aid

Contention 1: Self Defense ----In order to protect our self against terrorism we need to attack before being attacked. Guiora04 (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. ----Targeted Killings break up the terrorist organizations and break down attacks. Wilnera 10(Alex S. Wilnera, Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), STUDIES IN CONFLICT AND TERRORISM, "Targeted Killings in Afghanistan: Measuring Coercion and Deterrence in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency", Vol. 33, No. 4, 2010, p. asp, AL) The literature on targeted killings suggests that their use diminishes the coercive and operational capability of violent, non-state groups in a number of ways. The constant removal of leadership leaves an organization in general disarray -- replacement takes time and command and control mechanisms are weakened as a result. Ariel Sharon, Israel' s prime minister at the height of the Al Aqsa Intifada, explained his country' s use of targeted killing as such: "the goal is to place the terrorists in varying situations every day and to ' unbalance' them so that they will be busy protecting themselves. " By removing particular individuals that fill critical positions within organizations and forcing others to seek refuge, a group' s ability to coordinate acts of violence is substantially disrupted. In the meantime,communication between leaders and operators breaks down, complicating both short-term tactical planning andlong-term strategic planning. Contention 2 Terrorists ----Those who participate in terrorist acts are Guiora04 (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. Guiora04 (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 willbring 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 andcould not endanger the very existence of Spain. Such is the case with terrorist attacks throughout the world over theyears. 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. .