Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool

Resolved: Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool When arguing the aspect of morality in government, one must look past the morality of common men and instead look to a medium by which he can properly judge a government's morality. To quote John Locke: "the whole purpose of government is to make laws for the regulation and preservation of property, and for the defense of the community against external aggression, all this only for the public good." to put it simply, the purpose of a government is to work towards the public good of the citizens who have appointed said government. This concept is more commonly known as Social Contract theory, and is the proper medium to be used when judging the morality of governments. Because the role of government is to protect its people, and targeted killing is a method of accomplishing this task, I affirm the resolution with the Value Premise of the Role of Government, and I incorporate with the Criterion of Adhering to the moral medium of Social Contract Theory. before I continue, I will define a few key terms. Foreign Policy: A policy pursued by a a nation in its dealings with acheiving national objectives, as defined by Columbia Journal of Internation Law. Targeted Killing: A use of lethal force by a subject of international law that is directed against an individually selected person who is not in custody and that is intentional (rather than negligent or reckless), premeditated (rather than merely voluntary), and deliberate (meaning that the "the death of the targeted person is the actual aim of the operation, as opposed to the deprivations of life which, although intentional and premeditated, remain teh incidental result of an operation pursuing other aims), as defined by Nils Melzer, PhD. Social Contract Theory: An agreement among the memebrs of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each, as defined by thefreedictionary.com CONTENTION 1: The main Duty of Government is to Protect Its People Noted Philosopher John Locke believed in two states: the state of nature and the state of war. The state of nature is a state where men live equally and own private property, and where they form communities to care for their young and help one another due to morals, not politics. The state of war is a state where men or groups of men constantly fight one another for dominion over other groups. According to Locke, men choose to leave the state of nature and form political societies in order to prevent the state of war. Because government was formed by the people to protect them, the role of government is to protect and serve teh people who appointed them. Furthermore, Otto Pick, professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science states: "Security is an essential precondition of an ordered human existance", and that "governments must provide a secure environment which would allow people to pursue their their economic and social goals without undue anxiety and fear". He further states that the National Government's main duty is to uphold national security because "the concpet of security covers every facet of life" [(COLLECTIVE SECURITY, 1974, p.15] Because this social contract is formed between the government and the governed, the government is morally required to work towards the protection of the people it serves. When using this as the medium of determining what makes a government's policies moral or immoral, the policies that adhere to the Social Contract theory by working to protect the citizens of the government making the policies would be considered moral. The use of targeted killing can be used to protect the people being governed, and as such if a government chooses to use this method in order to work towards the good of its people, then they are making a morally correct decision due to the role of government itself. CONTENTION 2: Targeted killing is proven to lead to protection. A government's use o targeted killing has been proven to lead to the protection of that country, and therefor deemed morally permissible through its adherence to the social contract theory medium. One of the most well-known targeted killings in modern times would be those directed from teh United States towards leaders of the terrorist groups Al Qaeda. According to www.brookings.edu, although Al Qaeda had various other sub-leaders and individual organizations, "Bin Laden worked hard to try to knit these disparate organizations together. His success has made them all far more lethal, but keeping the ties strong depended heavily on Bin Laden's charisma and his access to funds. Zwahiri [Osama's former right hand] is less charismatic than Bin Laden. Perhaps more important, he and other potential new leaders may not have teh fund-raising powers that Bin Laden's star power gave him." to put it simply, even though Osama's death may not lead to the immediate dissolving of Al-Qaeda, they are now crippled ot the point where they cannot recieve the recruits or funding needed to linch high-profile attacks. Isreal also protected its people through its use of targeted killing. According to Steven Down, professor of international relations: "In sum, in the majority of cases... has not been tantamount to assassination because Isreal is engaged in armed conflict with terrorists, those targeted are often killed by conventional military means, and the targets of the attacks are mostly combatants or are part of the military chain of command, ... the threat of teh Israeli practice of targeted killing is consistent with a country's right to target specific individuals in the pursuit of self defense." [David, 2003 (Steven, Professor of International Relations, "Isreal's policy of Targeted Killing")] Furthermore, Stephen Knoepfler states: "Currently, even during times of peace, there are moments when it is permissible... to use lethal force because apprehension is infeasible and it is otherwise immediately neccesary to protect themselves or innocent bystanders. ... In killing the individual, the assassin is killing the person insofar as that person is prominent, has a particular title, or has a particular amoun of influence. In the circumstance in which the targeted individual is killed out of self-defense (or the defense of others), ... is targeted insofar as that individual is uniquely capable in that instant of bringing about the death of law enforcement officers or innocent bystanders... would be a permissible assassination, even in peacetime." [Knoepfler, 2010 (Stephen JD, "Dead or Alive: the Future o fUS Assassination Policy Under a Just War Tradition)]. In conclusion, as I have stated in the round, when judging a government's morality, we must look to the medium of Social Contract Theory as defined by John Locke. Because a government's main duty is to uphold this theory, and Targetted Killing accomplishes this, it is moral.