Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool.

I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution, “Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.”DefinitionsTargeted 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." [1]Pro CaseValue: National Security. Specifically, the National Security of the state performing the targeted killing. National Security is defined as, “The protection or the safety of a country’s secrets and its citizens." [2] National Security is the foremost moral obligation of National Governments. Nations need to do what is necessary, not only to ensure their own survival, but also to protect their own citizens from threats. Value Criterion: David Gauthier’s Social Contract. This round should be judged based on whichever value better upholds the obligations laid out in Gauthier’s Social Contract. According to Gauthier; "when one is engaged in interaction such that others’ actions can affect one’s own interests, and vice versa, one does better if one acts cooperatively. By acting to further the interests of the other, one serves one’s own interests as well. We should, therefore, insofar as we are rational, develop within ourselves the dispositions to constrain ourselves when interacting with others." [3] This criterion achieves National Security because under the Social Contract, both parties can greatly benefit from National Security and therefore, both should strive to achieve it. Contention 1: Governments have a moral obligation to protect their citizens. This contention pretty much speaks for itself. By entering into the Social Contract, the citizens and the government agree to the terms of the contract based on the premise that fulfilling said contract would be mutually beneficial. The citizens receive order, protection, education, etc. In return, the citizens give up some liberties; they pay taxes, serve in the military, etc. The most important privilege given to the citizens by the government is that of protection. The government can’t function without the citizens, and the citizens can’t function without the government, so when the citizens are threatened, the government is morally obligated to protect them to uphold the social contract. Now, I understand that the government can’t always protect all citizens from any and all harm, but they should do everything they can realistically, to do so.Contention 2: Targeted Killing is a means by which governments protect their own citizens. On September 11, 2001, the terrorist organization Al Qaeda, destroyed the twin towers and killed 2,800 Americans. This was not an attack on the American military, nor was it an attack on government officials. This was an attack solely on the American citizens. After such an attack, the U.S. government was morally obligated to retaliate because of the Social Contract. The government was morally obligated to act in self-defense, not out of revenge, but to prevent further attacks from occurring on U.S. citizens. The fact that targeted killing is effective in eliminating terrorist organizations is evidenced by the fact that:1) There has not been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.2) Al Qaeda has been practically wiped out of its former strongholds in Afghanistan and Pakistan. U.S officials report that the number of “high-value” Al Qaeda targets remaining in Pakistan has dwindled to a mere number of two.If you acknowledge that governments have a moral obligation to protect their citizens, then there is no denying that targeted killing is indeed morally permissible. If an action is fulfilling a moral obligation, then it must be morally permissible. Targeted Killing must be morally permissible because it fulfills the moral obligation to protect citizens.So in summation;1) Governments have a moral obligation to protect their citizens2) Targeted Killing is a means by which governments protect their own citizens3) Therefore, Targeted Killing is morally permissible because it fulfills that moral obligationHaving said that, because governments have a moral obligation to protect their citizens and therefore have a moral obligation to fight terrorism, the burden on Con in this debate will be to find a way to fight terrorism and protect citizens without using targeted killing. I now turn the floor over to my opponent. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources1) http://www.operationalstudies.com...;2) http://www.macmillandictionary.com...;3) http://www.iep.utm.edu...;