Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

History teaches us that when the rule of law is replaced by the rule of might, civilization regresses and the social costs increase far beyond the temporary impressions of security. When governments forego legality and legitimacy, they enhance the legitimacy of the claims of those who resort to terrorism. Because I agree with father of international criminal law, Cherif Bassiouni, I negate. Targeted killing is an "extra-judicial, premeditated killing by a state of a specifically identified person not in its custody." (Richard Murphy & Afsheen John Radsan, Due Process and Targeted Killing of Terrorists, 31 CARDOZO L. REV. 405, 405 (2009)) Morally means conforming to a standard of right behavior.(MW) Permissible means that may be permitted. (MW) The value is Justice. Justice is the preferred value because any moral system's goal is to establish how people can be treated. In his book A Theory of Justice, Rawls explains that justice has two criteria: (1) an independent criterion for what constitutes a fair or just outcome of the procedure, and (2) a procedure that guarantees that the fair outcome will be achieved. Thus, the criterion is Due Process. Due process is necessary to achieve justice because without it, the innocent lose the protection of their life and illegitimate power takes over. Cherif Bassouni furthers, "Civilized society can never abandon legitimacy nor legality, lest it lose the high moral ground in opposing all forms of human depredations and violations of our international legal order. the ends cannot justify the means, because when that occurs, the unwritten social contract of civilized government is broken, and everything becomes justified by anyone who has the power to impose". Contention 1: Targeted Killing grants the executive unrestricted power SPA: Only the judiciary can create a fair, uniform standard. In the affirmative world the executive becomes the judge, jury, and executioner of targets on the premise of defense. Yet judicial review is needed to decide fair standards. McKelvey writes in the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, "The judiciary has the authority to define "imminence" as a legal standard. judicial review would determine that targeted killing does not satisfy the imminence standard for the president's authority to use force in defense of the nation. Targeted killing is a premeditated assassination and the culmination of months of intelligence gathering, planning, and coordination. "Imminence" would have no meaning as a standard if it were stretched to encompass such an elaborate and exhaustive process. Similarly, the concept of "defensive" force is useless if it includes entirely premeditated and offensive forms of military action against a perceived threat. McKelvey then relates the situation to the illegal detentions that occurred at Guantanamo Bay. Quote, "In June of 2010 the government lost nearly 75 percent of the cases involving habeas petitions filed at Guantanamo Bay. This suggests that for the majority of enemy combatants, the government has had insufficient evidence for the assertion that the detained individuals were involved in hostilities against the United States." Thus, because the decisions of targeting are unjust, targeted killings are unjust. SPB: Accountability When the executive is given unrestricted power, they have no accountability for their actions. After leading a comprehensive analysis by the United Nations of targeted killings, Philip Alston concluded, "The States concerned have often failed to specify the legal justification for their policy, to disclose the safeguards in place to ensure that targeted killings are in fact legal and accurate, or to provide accountability mechanisms for violations. Most troublingly, they have refused to disclose who has been killed, for what reason, and with what collateral consequences. The result has been the displacement of clear legal standards with a vaguely defined license to kill, and the creation of a major accountability vacuum." This accountability vacuum entirely undermines the transparency required in any fair justice system, and the impacts are clear. Jane Mayer reports on an incident in which the US targeted a funeral in search of terrorists. Quote, "The local population was clearly angered...The news denounced the strike as sinking to the level of the terrorists" Because of the lack of accountability, innocent people die unjustly and have no recourse. Clearly, justice requires methods that don't violate the rights of innocent. Also note when nations resort to methods like bombing funerals, they inspire retaliation by people who otherwise weren't a threat. Contention 2: Lacking judicial review, rights lose their meaning. The killing of American citizen Anwar Awlaki shows that in the absence of legislative and judicial constraints even presumably just governments unjustly violate people's rights. Professor of Political Science Janiel Visbal asserts, "The targeted person has been denied basic principles of modern legal and democratic systems. The individual is unable to challenge any arbitrary state action, controvert evidence involving him in terror acts, challenge any possible witness incriminating him, and been denied of the presumption of innocence until being found guilty through a fair and impartial trial in a court of law." This slippery slope leads to a horrible future. James Bovard in The Christian Science Monitor explains, "Some Americans may think the president's license to kill is simply a temporary tactic for the war on terror. But precedents being established today will be invoked by future commanders-in-chief who may have a much broader "enemies lists"[and simply] label the victims as terrorist suspects. Contention 3: Consequences SPA: Civilian casualties cause anger and resentment. Theresa Reinold, in The American Journal of International law, (Apr. 2011) writes, "drone strikes have been challenged on the ground that they are counterproductive: they fuel anti-American sentiment among the Pakistani population and breed a desire for revenge. drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders, and] some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2 percent – hardly "precision." , every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased." SPB: Targeted Killings serve as a scapegoat for inspiring terrorism. The only thing accomplished by a targeted killing is retribution. They don't promote peace, in fact, they only set the stage for further attacks. In fact, a report by Blumand and Heymann of Harvard Law School shows the ineffectiveness of targeted killings at eliminating terrorism. The report asserts, "An immediate consequence of eliminating leaders of terrorist organizations will sometimes be what may be called the Hydra effect, the rise of more—and more resolute—leaders to replace them. The decapitating of the organization may also invite retaliation by the other members and followers of the organization. Thus, when Israel assassinated Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah‘s leader in Lebanon, in 1992, a more charismatic and successful leader, Hassan Nassrallah, succeeded [him] Mussawi. In the long run, hundreds and hundreds were killed. SPC: Economic effects. A report by the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents showed that as Israel's use of targeted killing increased, the retaliation by Hamas increased as well. The research found an increase in terrorist attacks of 60% as a result of the targeted killing with Israel and Hamas. Also note the Bank of Israel report found that terrorist attacks caused a drop in the stock market, thus creating a double-whammy effect. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing you arguments. Good luck! :)