Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

I will defend consequentialism, particularly the ethics of responsibility. The moral agent must be a government policy-maker. There is no formal definition of targeted killing that includes killings carried out by private citizens. Professor Dan Brock begins by noting that policy-makers must weigh ethics differently: "The different goals of academic scholarship and public policy call in turn for different virtues and behavior in their practitioners. Philosophers who steadfastly maintain their academic ways in the public policy setting are not to be admired as islands of integrity in a sea of messy political compromise and corruption. Instead, I believe that if philosophers maintain the academic virtues there they will not only find themselves often ineffective but will as well often fail in their responsibilities and act wrongly" (Brock, 1987). Brock, Daniel W. (1987). "Truth or Consequences: The Role of Philosophers in Policy-Making," Ethics, Vol. 97, No. 4, P.786-91, JSTOR. The foremost duty of government is to protect its populace. Owen Harries, borrowing from Max Weber, notes that in politics, "it is ‘the ethic of responsibility' rather than ‘the ethic of absolute ends' that is appropriate" (Harries, 1993). Harries draws a comparison to human rights and notes that: "While an individual is free to treat human rights as absolute, to be observed whatever the cost, governments must always weigh consequences and the competing claims of other ends. So once they enter the realm of politics, human rights have to take their place in a hierarchy of interests, including such basic things as national security and the promotion of prosperity" (Harries, 1993). Harries, Owen (1993). "Power and Civilization," The National Interest, Spring, Lexis. This responsibility mandates that the government engage in proportionate and distinct targeted killings against those who pose a threat to innocent citizens. George Schultz, the Secretary of State under the Reagan administration, states the case very clearly: "There should be no moral confusion on the issue. Our aim is not to seek revenge but to put an end to violent attacks against innocent people, to make the world a safer place to live for all of us. Clearly the democracies have a moral right, indeed a duty, to defend themselves" (Canestaro, 2003). Canestaro, Nathan (2003). "American Law and Policy on Assassinations of Foreign Leaders: The Prcticality of Maintaining the Status Quo." Boston College International and Comparative Law Review Vol. 26 No. 1, Winter, p. 1-34, Lexis. Another moral defense is that targeted killing is an act of self-defense. This clearly falls within the tenets of Article 51 of the United Nations charter. It is performed against an actual use of force, or hostile act. It is also justified under the preemptive self-defense against an imminent use of force, which is clearly established by the actions of those targeted. It is also appropriate to use self-defense against a continuing threat, which forces of terrorism clearly constitute. Yet another defense of the morality of the practice can be found in the realist school of moral philosophy, which argues that the laws of morality must adjust to the laws of war, rather than vice versa. Michael Walzer summarized this well in his book Just and Unjust Wars, writing "(In war,) men and women do what they must to save themselves and their communities, and morality and law have no place. Inter arma silent leges: in time of war the law is silent" (Walzer, 1977). Walzer, Michael (1977). Just and Unjust Wars. Basic books, p. 3. Many negatives will argue that the way targeted killings are selected is undemocratic, and will propose a law enforcement model as an alternative. This is a problem with the process of selecting who to kill, not with the act itself. One proposal, raised by Professors Murphy and Radsan, would implement a clear due process procedure and follow-up investigation that would still respect the need to preserve sensitive national security information (Murphy and Radsan, 2009). Murphy, Richard W., and Radsan, Afsheen (2009). "Due Process and Targeted Killing of Terrorists" Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 31, p. 405, 2009, Lexis. The pure law enforcement model, as noted by Major Matthew J. Machon, "appears insufficient when the disturbing level of violence that non-state actors can inflict has caused significant uncertainty about the suitability of situating criminal acts related to terrorism within the purview of law enforcement and the terrorists operate within the territory of states either unwilling or incapable of cooperating" (Machon, 2005). Machon, Major Matthew A (2005). "Targeted Killing as an Element of U.S. Foreign Policy in the War on Terror", Monograph published by U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies, School of Advanced Military Studies 250 Gibbon Ave Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027. Consider the practical impacts of arresting Osama bin Laden: it would also create the rallying cry effect, but would also put every aspect of the U.S. proceedings under a global microscope. Many negative teams will argue that targeted killings present a number of logistical difficulties. I believe the affirmative should forcefully stress that logistical difficulties don't prove that targeted killing is morally impermissible; they only prove it is difficult and should be used with extreme caution. Additionally, there is reason to doubt the difficulty of overcoming logistical hurdles. "Blowback" and retaliation are tautological; targeted killings are self-defense in the eyes of the attacker. Further, effective targeted killings hamper the size and scope of an organization's ability to perpetrate violence. While recruiting is important, expertise is even more important. Byman weighs the issue very well by noting that "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 in lacking expertise, these new recruits will not pose the same kind of threat" (Byman, 2006). Byman, Daniel (2006). "Do Targeted Killings Work?" Foreign Affairs, Mar-Apr, p. 95, Lexis. There is also a difference between the number of members and the lethality of attacks. Masterminds are responsible for devising clever methods to kill thousands. The number of recruits does not linearly correlate with the number of deaths each is responsible for. I believe three key factors serve as a framework/criterion for decision-making: (a) Determining the moral agent. If the moral agent is a government policy-maker, they must win their ethical arguments as they relate to the competing goals inherent within policy-making. They must prove potential liberty concerns outweigh death to policy-makers. (b) Weighing who best protects innocent lives. Terrorist attacks kill THOUSANDS of innocent citizens. Most targeted killings inflict few, if any, civilian casualties. Inflcting casualties is a goal of terrorists: avoid them is a goal of targeted killing. Targeted killing is a moral duty carried out using the utmost caution in the face of madmen bent on destruction. (c) The burden of proof is on them to disprove every instance and example of a targeted killing. They must prove it is *morally impermissible* not just *generally unadvisable*