Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool

First I will be going over the Pro case and then I will defend mine. Pro Case Pro's definition of targeted killing is perfect because it is vague enough that it completely supports my second and third contentions. Literally anyone can become a victim of targeted killing. All that is required is the consent of the man in charge. Keep this definition in mind when you read over my case. Value: Locke's Social Contract Theory. It is from the Social Contract that the Pro case derives the moral permissibility mandated by the resolution. If I refute the Social Contract, then there is no way you can justify an affrimative vote. First of all, Locke's Social Contract makes it very clear that "legitimate government is instituted by the explicit consent of those governed." [1] What this means is that the Social Contract is only valid if ACTUAL consent is given to the government by free men. So I would ask Pro, and anyone else reading this, have you ever signed the Social Contract? Have you ever given your explicit consent to your government to govern you? Of course not. The Social Contract is non-existent. According to Anthony Quinton, philosopher David Hume agrees with me on this; "He [Hume] allows that the very first states may have been created by a contractual agreement between the comparatively few people involved. But that has no bearing on current political relationships. These cannot be attributed to tacit consent. Most people have no idea that they are giving such consent, nor could mere presence within the boundaries of a state add up to it, since for most people there is no real choice but to stay where they are.The governments which exist in the world today mainly orginated in conquest or usurpation, but that does not deprive them of legitimacy. Obedience to them arises from customs and habit, not from any kind of promise." [2]With Pro's moral connection to the resolution completely refuted, there is no way the Affirmative case can absorb my value of National Security. Value Criterion: Adhering to the moral medium of Social Contract Theory.This Value Criterion is completely invalid since the Value Premise has already been refuted.Contention 1: The main Duty of Government is to Protect Its PeopleOnce again, this Contention can't stand if the Value Premise is refuted, but I will go over it anyways. I completely agree with Professor Otto Pick's quote. However, targeted killing is counter productive to the security the affirmative case is trying to provide. More on this later. The affirmative case focuses on terrorism, specifically the Al Qaeda organization. The United States is the country which used targeted killing to combat Al Qaeda so it is perfectly appropriate for me to use them as an example here. Even if the Social Contract was valid and applied to the United States, targeted killing would undermine the Social Contract between the U.S. government and it's people. Looking back to my contention 2, targeted killing would undermine due process and the rights of all 310 million American citizens. Targeted killing does not uphold the Social Contract. Targeted killing is more akin to a totalitarian regime. Contention 2: Targeted killing is proven to lead to protection.This has already been addressed in my attack on C1, the Social Contract, and more importantly, my C1. The question is, protection for whom? As I've said before, targeted killing results in the loss of innocent life, period. Additionally, undermining the rights and privileges of 310 million American citizens is hardly moral. What kind of Social Contract prevents citizens from being safe within their own borders and from their own government? Con CaseValue: National Security.Pro has not attacked my value head on, rather they have tried to absorb it into their value. However, the Social Contract is utterly refuted so this simply is not possible and my value of National Security remains completely untouched. That alone is enough to justify a Con vote. Value Criterion: Cost-Benefit Analysis. Pro states that I innapropriately used my Value Criterion. To clear things up, I would like to reframe my Value Criterion as consequentialism; a moral philosopy that frames morality in regards to the more favorable consequences of actions. This is an appropriate criterion because it connects to morality, and at the same time it is literally the same exact thing as a cost-benefit analysis. They both seek the more favorable consequences. I would even say that the cost-benefit analysis is the heart of consequentialism. This also addresses the second attack on my VC.Contention 1: Targeted Killing results in the loss of innocent life which is counterproductive to the goal of National Security. 1) Pro seems to misunderstand my Value. I am not valuing the security of any specific nation. I am not valuing the security of the nations performing the targeted killings, nor am I valuing the security of the nations where targeted killing takes place. Rather, I am valuing National Security as a whole. Meaning I value the security of all nations indiscriminately and negative side effects of targeted killing are seen in the nation doing it and the nation in which tking is taking place. 2) The evidence Pro asked for; "A reduction in the number of civilian deaths would be the one sign of progress, yet the number has increased every year since 2006, and a third of the nearly 10,000 total are attributable to Nato or Afghan government forces. A confidential US military report in 2009 conceded that Nato was causing "unnecessary collateral damage"; but policies causing civilian deaths continue, notably the use of drones for surveillance and "targeted" killings – though they mainly kill civilians." [3]"Suffering by ordinary Afghans is even greater. Around 2500 non-combatants were killed and 4000 wounded during first 10 months of the last year." [4]Based on these statistics, targeted killing is hardly proportional.Contention 2: Targeted Killings allow for one judge, jury, and executioner.First of all, Nils Melzer never defined National Security as he says he did. Nils Melzer only defined targeted killing in this debate. I really don't know what he's talking about here. Until this is cleared up, I really don't know what to say.Contention 3: Targeted Killing is like skiing down a slippery slope.The important points I bring up here are not empirical, they are logical. If a state is willing to go against it's own laws and Constitution with something like the Patriot Act, then we have a serious moral dilemma on our hands. The Patriot Act, intended to fight terrorism, (which is noble, I'm not going to deny that) was actually used to for something else entirely and infringed upon the privacy rights of American citizens. This is what I mean when I'm talking about a moral slippery slope. Targeted killing may be intended to only fight terrorism, but as a consequence, there are numerous civilian causalties and 310 million Americans are having their rights undermined.