Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool.

The word “assassination” is brought up a lot throughout the con case. Just to clarify, there is a huge difference between a targeted killing and assassination. An assassination is defined as, “to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons.” [1] So here’s the key difference: Targeted Killing is undertaken for military purposes.Assassination is undertaken for political purposes.Clearly, targeted killing is not assassination. Con CaseValue: Justice. My opponent is valuing justice...which is great, but what does that even mean? Justice for whom? Justice for the victims? Justice for governments? Justice for all? Furthermore, how do we determine the standards of justice? Is there a non-arbitrary way to make a distinction between what is just and unjust? Finally, and most importantly, what does justice have to do with morality? The con is denying that targeted killing is morally permissible, but on what grounds can he do that without a moral framework? With no moral framework to go off of, we must resort to the one I have provided with Gauthier’s Social Contract. Value Criterion: Prevention of Collateral Damage. The problem with this criterion is that it is only a criticism of the affirmative case and nothing more. The con case offers no alternative means to combat terrorism and protect the lives of the innocent people terrorists target. Additionally, if we are to sit idly by and not combat terrorists with targeted killing, the potential loss of innocent life substantially increases. By engaging in targeted killing, we are effectively destroying terrorist organizations and their ability to wage war. I’m a little unsure of the way my opponent formatted his case, but I will just treat each argument as a separate contention. Contention 1: Targeted Killings are ineffectiveAs I pointed out earlier, a targeted killing is not an assassination. A targeted killing is strictly a military action. This contention directly conflicts with my second contention. If you acknowledge the obvious fact that U.S. soil has not been attacked since 9/11, then clearly our targeted killing efforts have been effective. As far as the world opinion of the U.S. goes, that is not relevant to this debate at all. Looking to my case, the moral obligation the government has to protect its citizens supersedes the need to maintain a good public opinion. Furthermore, Daniel Byman writes; “Israel's targeted killings have shattered Palestinian terrorist groups and made it difficult for them to conduct effective operations.” Then later, when commenting on the lethality of terrorist attacks; “In 2003, the [lethality] rate began to fall, dropping to 0.98 deaths per attack that year, 0.33 in 2004, and 0.11 in 2005.” [3]The point is this: The quantity of Hamas terrorist attacks has increased, but the quality has significantly decreased. That is really what matters here. The Israeli policy of targeted killing is saving more lives. Contention 2: Targeted Killings kill innocent PeopleLooking again to MY second contention, I pointed out that the 9/11 attack killed 2,800 innocent people. This attack was carried out by a group of 19 terrorists. Nineteen killed close to three thousand. Keeping that in mind, I think we can all agree that the eradication of these terrorist groups should be one of our highest priorities. It is unfortunate that innocents sometimes perish in targeted killings, but it is necessary to eliminate our targets. Also, according to W. Hays Parks; “the death of noncombatants ancillary to the lawful attack of a military objective is neither assassination nor otherwise unlawful. Civilians and other noncombatants who are within or in close proximity to a military objective assume a certain risk through their presence in or proximity to such targets; this is not something about which an attacking military force normally would have knowledge or over which it would have control.” [2]Contention 3: TK pressures terrorist to use targeted killings.This contentions entire argument rests on the premise that targeted killing = assassination. I have already refuted this, so this argument has no warrant. I would also like to remind con of the definitions of targeted killing: “Premeditated, preemptive, and deliberate killing of an individual or individuals known to represent a clear and present threat to the safety and security of a state through affiliation with terrorist groups or individuals." If a terrorist attacks a non-terrorist, it would not be considered a targeted killing. Contention 4: TK’s are self defeating the terrorists are just replacedThe argument is that “The decapitating of the organization MAY also invite retaliation.” Yet, only one example of this ever occurring is cited and that example is of an event that took place twenty years ago. Taking this into account, it’s safe to say that this contention is a slippery slope. Without solid evidence to justify this argument, it can not stand. However, even if sufficient evidence was supplied, it would not change the fact that governments are morally obligated to protect their citizens and fight terrorism. Without any practical alternative to targeted killing, we must affirm this resolution. Main points: 1) The con case has no moral framework so we must use mine2) Con’s value is vague and tells us nothing3) Con’s criterion is better achieved by the affirmative because I am preserving more life with targeted killing4) All of con’s contentions have been refutedFor these reasons I strongly urge an affirmative vote. Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources1)http://www.merriam-webster.com...2)http://www.law.upenn.edu...3)http://www.scribd.com...