Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool.

Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. From the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment gives an example to the presence of due process in international armed conflict and enlightens on the difference between due process offered to civilians and the due process taken during war. In this round, my value will be justice and my criterion will be due process. Morality is weighed by justice, and justice is fulfilled through due process. Where due process is present and unfailing, morality is present. Before I begin, I would like to define a few recurring terms that will appear throughout. Morality is conformity to ideals of right human conduct. Justice is the upholding of what is just especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. Due process is an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. Armed conflict is a conflict between two regions where at least twenty-five battle related deaths have occurred. Contention 1: Due process regarding international affairs and due process regarding the average citizen have different procedure. The procedure for a targeted killing and the standards of one are different from the trial in court that a citizen must be offered. Firstly, taken from Due Process and Targeted Killing of Terrorists by Richard Murphy and John Radsan: "Law enforcement permits targeted killing where necessary to prevent a person from posing an imminent threat of death or serious injury to others," and, "for [the killing of terrorists who are not of imminent danger to others] to be legal, it must comply with IHL.]" To explain IHL, one must first explain the human rights model. The human rights model states that a person not in custody may only be killed to prevent them from posing a serious threat of death or serious injury to others. However, IHL may displace the human rights model during armed conflict and permits the killing of opposing combatants or civilians who are directly taking part in hostilities. The killing of civilians is still sharply limited by the law of international armed conflict. However, to be one who is permitted to kill, a combatant, one must yet fulfill four conditions: (a) they are commanded by responsible authority; (b) they wear a fixed, distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; (c) they carry their arms openly; and (d) they comport with the laws and customs of war. Because targeted killing follows the procedures taken in due process regarding international affairs and is thus just, targeted killing is morally permissible. Contention 2: Regardless of damage, if the intent is moral and the risk of death to innocents ignorant to the executive, the act of targeted killing is moral. From, ‘Do Targeted Killings Work?' By Daniel Byman, "Israeli officers had first gone to the Palestinian Authority and repeatedly demanded [terrorist Salah Shehada's] arrest. When the PA refused, the Israeli government then sought to apprehend him directly. But they gave up after realizing that Shehada lived in the middle of Gaza City and that any attempt to grab him would probably spark a general melee. [With no other available option, Israeli officials decided to kill Shehada, but] Israel had to call off its first eight attempts because Shehada was always accompanied by his daughter. Only when [Israel's intelligence service] learned that he would be in an apartment building with no innocents nearby did the operation proceed." While the precautions taken by all means fulfilled due process, Shehada's daughter, it turned out, was still with him, and she as well as other civilians were killed along with her father. However, ignorance is not punishable by law and weighing morality with justice, ignorance and good intent are not immoral. If the knowledge of the presence of his daughter and others was known to Israel, then the attack would not have been made as proven by the eight other prevented attempts. Contention 3: For targeted killing to be just, violence must be engaged in by another party toward the executive. From Daniel Byman, "Democratic states are committed to the international model in which states respect one another's sovereignty, and thus do not engage in violence unless they are compelled by other acts of violence." Using the United States as only an example, the United States does not assassinate unless armed conflict arises. Examples of this are the deaths of terrorists Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Both killed a substantial number of people from the United States, Saddam Hussein through suicide bombers and Osama Bin Laden in 9/11. In summary, due process of international armed conflict is exhibited during sessions where targeted killing is necessary making targeted killing just and thus moral.