In order to defeat ISIS we have to kill the loved ones of terrorists

Thank you. In this round of the debate, I shall state my case and then respond to the claims by the Pro in the following round.Contention 1: International LawAll Four Geneva conventions contain a common clause known as Article 3 [1,2]. Section 1 of the Article states the following [3]:"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;(b) taking of hostages;(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."This article, which the United States has ratified, clearly prohibits the killing of non-combatants [4]. Therefore the proposal by the Pro of killing the families of ISIS members would be classified as a war crime.Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, an additional treaty signed in 1977, also states in Article 51.2 [5]:"The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited."This article makes it clear that it is illegal to target civilians or threaten violence among civilians. This article was signed by the US but it has not been ratified, however, it is still considered binding ever since the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Ruling [1]. As the families of Terrorists would in most cases be civilians, the Proposal by the pro amounts to a war crime under Protocol I. Committing these crimes war crimes would effectively eliminate the Moral authority of the United States and in all likelihood turn the US into a pariah state, and possibly result in the expulsion from NATO and the OAS and threaten other alliances the US has with nations such as South Korea, Japan, and Australia.Contention 2: IneffectiveIn addition to the strategy proposed being a war crime, it is also ineffective as it would only create more terrorists.Past and present US counterterrorism strategies have actually resulted in creating more terrorists than it kills. A prime example of this is the use of drone strikes. The use of drone strikes in areas outside of conflict zones, such as in Yemen and Pakistan has resulted in an increase in anti-American sentiment and terrorist recruitment [7]. Drone strikes create a wedge between local communities and the United States and brings them closer to groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda or the Taliba. Drone strikes have also resulted in a large number of civilian deaths. These deaths, especially the deaths of children, are then used by terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban to recruit new supporters. Local people are more willing to join out of a desire for revenge against the US. Many of these recruits are friends and family of the victims [8]. We have seen this, especially in Yemen [9]. In 2009, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula had very few members and controlled no territory, however, US drone strikes have allowed AQAP to recruit new members. The group now controls large swaths of the country and has well over 1,000 members.Another Example of a failed counterterror policy is detention at Guantanamo Bay, which I will elaborate on in the next round.Such a policy as proposed by the Pro would likely yield similar results, as relatives and friends of the victims would likely be pushed into the hands of ISIS and give ISIS a new propaganda tool.Sources[1] http://www.politifact.com...[2] http://www.cfr.org...[3] https://www.icrc.org...[4] https://www.icrc.org...[5] https://www.icrc.org...[6] http://theweek.com...[7] http://www.theatlantic.com...[8] https://www.theguardian.com...[9] http://www.nytimes.com...