Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissable Foreign Policy Tool

This is a LD Debate Aff Case: I affirm the resolution that "Targeted Killing Is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool." In order to more clarify and solidify my case, I offer the following definitions. 1.Moral- According to moral means or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. a. Right- being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper b. Wrong- an injurious, unfair, or unjust act 4.Permissible- According to permissible is something that may be permitted. It is acceptable. 5.Targeted Killing: Targeted killings are used by governments to eliminate individuals they a. view as a threat. 6.Policy- a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions 7.Tool- something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession 8.Value- what you hold most dear 9.An eye for an eye- a person who has injured another person receives the same injury in compensation. 10.Justice- the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments My Value in this case is Justice. Justice is when you do the right thing for the right reasons. Now, if we killed a terrorist then they would no longer be a threat to society. Now, my opponent may try to say we can "lock them up for good." "Throw away the key." Or whatever. But I think we need to realize what might happen if we do that. The terrorist may escape and cause even more trouble, or the country they belong in may try to rescue him, making it even worse for us as they may come back to haunt us…. We should just stop the problem at its source once and for all! We need to kill the terrorists and save the multiple millions of lives whom are at risk by these horrible people!!!! My Criteria in this case is Utilitarianism. I will start with a discussion topic from The Religious Studies Website, "If the rightness of an action is evaluated according to the amount of pleasure it produces, is it morally just to torture one person to find the whereabouts of another person being held captive, if it will save their life? What about if torturing one person will save 10 lives, or 50 lives, or even 100 lives? What if these 100 lives were those of young children?" is that something to think about. By this I think we should replace torture with killing a person in our thought process. By killing someone who has done multiple killings (e.g. Adolf Hitler) we are saving yet more lives, according to Utilitarianism. We need to think about it this way; as my example said, what if the 100 lives being saved were those of young children, not able to defend themselves? Wouldn't we want to make sure that they didn't get killed? By killing a single terrorist we are saving multiple millions! So, I affirm the resolution that "Targeted Killing Is a Morally Permissible Policy Tool" for the following four contentions; 1.It gets rid of bad people 2.An eye for an eye 3.Justice Now, to address my contentions, Contention one, it gets rid of really bad people. So, let's go back to my previous example of Adolf Hitler. If we had known about all the murders he was responsible for, which was 11 million before WW2 and over 50 million after World War Two, then all these lives would have been rescued and they wouldn't have had to die. We could have stopped him before he was responsible for all the deaths that he was responsible for!. People don't think killing is right either way, but is we had killed Adolf Hitler; we would have been saving multiple millions of lives! Now, on to my second contention, I feel an eye for an eye is good, mainly because if someone does something to you, you should definitely get your revenge. And no, I am not saying if someone killed your family member you should kill them, I am just saying if someone did something to your countries citizen, then wouldn't you want to take revenge? This is an eye for an eye. Wouldn't we want to cause the same damage done? An eye for an eye is the right way to go. Now, my opponent may say otherwise, but I believe it is the right thing to do. Now, let's look at my fifth and final contention, Justice. Let's take Bin Laden's case for an example here. Bin Laden was, according to the NYT article published May 1st, 2011, killed in a firefight with United States forces in Pakistan. Mr. Barack Obama declared "Justice has been done" as he disclosed that American military and C.I.A. operatives had finally cornered Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, who had eluded them for nearly a decade! American officials said that Bin Laden had resisted, and was shot in the head. Now, if you had never heard of this man, or if you had, but he hadn't done all the horrible things he did, you might be sympathetic for him, correct? But what he did was unforgivable, especially to those directly involved, including families of the lost loved ones whom he was responsible for the deaths of on September 11th, 2001. He needed to be killed, and he was! According to all my info you MUST vote for the affirmative. Thank-you.