LD: Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

"In today's wars, there are no morals." a quote by the infamous Osama bin laden. What this quote shows us is that the enemies of the U.S. will not let anything stop them from achieving their goal, the destruction of the US. Therefore the U.S. must be allowed to use the necessary means to protect itself from the enemy, whoever that may be. Because of this I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. Observation I: Definitions Cambridge University Press, Feb 15, 2010 Targeted Killing: According to Gary D. Solis, a Georgetown University Law professor, there are five things that must be in place for something to be considered a targeted killing. 1. An armed conflict must be in progress. 2. The target must be a specific individual. 3. The individual must have been beyond reasonable possibility of arrest. 4. The killing must have been authorized by a senior military officer. 5. The individual must have been directly participating in hostilities. Ethics in the first person by Deni Elliot Morally permissible: behavior that is within the bounds of the moral system. http://dictionary.reference.com... Foreign policy: a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives. Tool: anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose Further clarification can be provided in cross ex. Observation II: Value and value criterion My value in today's debate round will be that of the common good. The common good consists primarily of having the social systems, institutions, and environments, on which we all depend, work in a manner that benefits all people. Examples of particular common goods or parts of the common good include an accessible and affordable public health care system, a just legal and political system, and unpolluted natural environment, flourishing economic system and effective system of public safety and security. Because such systems, institutions, and environments have such a powerful impact on the well-being of members of a society, it is no surprise that virtually every social problem in one way or another is linked to how well these systems and institutions are functioning. My value criterion in today's debate round will be that of reason. Reason tells us that the government is set up to provide the common good then the government must have the means to provide the common good which includes public safety and security. If that mean MUST include targeted killing then targeted killings can be made morally PERMISSABLE. Observation III: Contentions Contention I: Targeted Killings have substantial benefits Editorial, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, March 1, 2010, p. B2, LEXIS-NEXIS Academic. Some argue that it is useless to target terrorist leaders because there is always another waiting in the wings. Experience, however, has demonstrated that there are substantial benefits in taking out leaders. It disrupts networks, hampers operations and may deter others considering careers as violent extremists. The effects can be dramatic. When Abu Musab Zarqawi was liquidated by an air strike in June 2006, it was the beginning of the end for al Qaeda in Iraq. Contention II: If war is permissible then logically so is targeted killing War-fighting can be morally justified even though it kills large numbers of people, many of them innocent civilians. Targeted killing has the potential to achieve the same ends as war-fighting by killing one not particularly innocent person instead of many innocent people (and with fewer collateral consequences in terms of infrastructure, economy, etc). Therefore, targeted killing can also be morally justified, at least in the circumstances where war-fighting is justified. Contention III: TARGETED KILLING IS MORAL WHEN THERE IS NO ALTERATIVE Amos N. Guiora [Professor of Law, U. of Utah], CASE WESTERN RESERVE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Winter 2009, p. 273, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Before authorizing and firing, the commander must ascertain who the target is; otherwise, the policy is illegal, ineffective, and immoral. But if you're sure you've got the right guy, and you have no other viable options, fire away. The nation's safety may depend on it. Contention IV: The US currently already uses targeted killings without any dilemma James S. Robbins [Executive Director, American Security Council Foundation], in FOCUS, Summer 2010, p. 22, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Targeted killings have become the nation's primary tool in the war on terrorism. The rise of remote-control counterterrorism has come about as the result of a combination of sophisticated technology and the radical shift in America's international behavior since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. What was considered a questionable, even illegal application of force before 9/11 became increasingly acceptable in the years following the attacks.