Targeted Kiling is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

I affirm. Thomas Hunter defines targeted killings as as the premeditated, preemptive, and intentional killing of an individual or individuals known or believed to be a threat to the safety and security of a state through affiliation with terrorist groups the unique nature of terrorism provides states with the specific rationale for the implementation of a policy of targeted killing". Richard Rosen explains moral permissibility in the context of conflict, "Known as the principle of proportionality, this analysis is related to St. Thomas Aquinas' "Doctrine of Double Effect": it is morally permissible to perform an act having two effects, one good and one evil, provided that the good, which is intended, outweighs the evil, which is merely foreseen. Jovan Babic explains the nature of moral permissibility: "Tolerance is the line between that which is permissible and that which is impermissible. In practice, what is morally permissible is what is in a way morally indifferent, what is morally impermissible can absolutely not be tolerated and its tolerance would mean abandoning the basic principle of moral evaluation" I have two key observations. First, the potential for misuse doesn't change moral permissibility Article 36, Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention illustrates this point: "A State is not required to foresee or analyze all possible misuses of a weapon, for almost any weapon can be misused in ways that would be prohibited". Second, the affirmative doesn't need to show targeted killing should always be used, just that it is like a tool in the toolbox that is morally permissible as explained above. This is because something can be permissible, without necessarily being necessary or the BEST option. (I am not saying it isn't the best option, but rather that it doesn't have to be for me to win) Because the resolution asks us to evaluate a state's actions, the value is governmental legitimacy. A government is only legitimate when it promotes safety while still taking its citizen's best interests into account. Thus, the criterion is National Security. In the context of the resolution, using targeted killings allows for the maximization of national security. Stephen Wijze, Professor of Political Theory at the University of Manchester ) asserts, "A government's prime duty is to protect its citizens from harm, and if targeted killing is the only way to eliminate an imminent and serious danger, the extrajudicial killing is not just morally justified but a moral obligation." Without the strategic usage of targeted killings, the government undermines its ability to protect its citizens, thus determining itself as an illegitimate government. Contention 1: Targeted Killings are the preferred counterterror option. First understand the right of nations to self-defense is recognized internationally. Article 51 of the UN Charter States, "Nothing shall impair the inherent right of collective self-defense if an attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. " Now consider our options. We have the choice between economic sanctions that are ultimately ineffective and result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents, ineffective and unsupported negotiations with terrorists, and conventional war that costs taxpayers trillions. Instead of these, John Yoo, Professor of Law at Berkeley, makes the case for targeted killings, "In the new type of war thrust upon the United States by the 9/11 attacks, the enemy resembles a network, not a nation. The better strategy is to attack the individuals in that network; there are no armed forces to target, and destroying training camps alone will amount to no more than "pounding sand." Steven R. David, Professor of International Relations at John Hopkins University, explains the moral legitimacy of the tactic: "Targeted killing rests on an unassailable moral foundation. Just War tradition from the time of Saint Augustine to the present has emphasized the need for armed conflict to be discriminate and proportionate in the pursuit of legitimate ends for the use of force to be moral. There is no question that the policy of targeted killing meets these criteria. Targeted killing is discriminatory in that it focuses exclusively on one's adversaries. Civilian casualties and collateral damage are minimized. It is proportionate in that only enough force is used to accomplish the task. Targeted killing does not employ large numbers of troops, bombers, artillery and other means that can leave in their wake far more destruction than they prevent. And targeted killing serves a legitimate end by striking at those who threaten the lives of innocents. Since the policy is applied against those on their way to terrorist attacks or those who make such attacks possible, targeted killing enables Israel to protect its civilians by eliminating those who would murder them. Far from being morally questionable, it would be difficult to come up with an approach in warfare that rests on stronger moral ground." The impact of this is that targeted killings constitute self-defense, and are even preferable to other options. Thus, national security can be achieved through targeted killings. Contention 2: Targeted Killings reduce the effectiveness of terrorist groups. SPA: Internal Conflicts Matthew Morehouse of the University of Nebraska, concludes the following after immense research, "Firstly, the threat of targeted killings has caused the terrorist groups in Pakistan to disperse their members across several provinces. Secondly, the threat of targeted killings has caused terrorist leaders to take refuge in the larger cities at greater risk of arrest from Pakistani authorities. Thirdly, targeted killings have lead to the creation of power vacuums, which in turn have lead to intra-terrorist conflicts over leadership. Fourthly, targeted killings have caused members of terrorist groups to become paranoid, thinking that even their most trusted comrades may be informants." These four reasons: lack of unity, forced into cities, power vacuums, and paranoia make it infinitely more difficult for terrorists to communicate, making them much less effective. SPB: Elimination of skilled terrorists Daniel Byman explains the trend, "Contrary to popular myth, the number of skilled terrorists is quite limited. Bomb makers, terrorism trainers, forgers, recruiters, and terrorist leaders are scarce; they need many months, if not years, to gain enough expertise to be effective. When these individuals are arrested or killed, their organizations are disrupted. The groups may still be able to attract recruits, but lacking expertise, these new recruits will not pose the same kind of threat." In a study of 300 targeted killings by Jenna Jordan, she found that, "when only the leader was removed, the organization fell apart 33.33% of the time, and when members of the upper echelon were removed 54% of the organizations fell apart.". A Georgetown University Report studied the effects of Israel's Targeted Killing during the second infantada and found that, "The lethality rate of Hamas attacks declined by over 98% from its highest point in 2002 to its lowest point in 2005. And while the number of attacks grew, the total number of Israeli civilian deaths plummeted, suggesting that the attacks themselves became far less effective. Indeed, after 2002 retired career IDF officer David Eshel observed an uptick in failed suicide bombings that "showed signs of poor planning and less-than-adequate preparation" All of this means that targeted killing can help ensure victory by ensuring the enemy is leaderless, less capable, and perhaps less willing, to carry out new attacks. sources: (Prof., Law, Texas Tech U. School of Law), VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW, May 2009, 744-745. Jovan Babic, Professor of Ethics in Peace Review, March 2000