Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. (STRICTLY VALUE LD)

For reasons of resolution analysis, I offer the following definitions. I define morality as the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Permissibility is the ability for an action to be permitted or allowed. Targeted killing is the elimination by force of an individual by the government who is allegedly taking part in conflict at arms or terrorism against the domestic government. A foreign policy tool is a way a government protects itself from international harm or conflict. I value morality as it is the ultimate good prescribed by the resolution. As the standard for the round, I offer the protection of innocent lives as the affirmative way to achieve the value premise of the resolution. By protecting the lives of the innocent, we prevent harm from being placed on a people. There are several reasons to judge an affirmative ballot. A. Targeted killing reduces the chance of terrorist attacks upon a people. B. Those who are in or were in affiliation with a terrorist or armed conflict group which is subject to targeted killing break the social contract. C. Targeted killing is considered part of armed conflict with the opposing individual or group. Contention 1. Targeted killing reduces the chance of armed conflict or terrorist attacks upon a people. This is the affirmative's primary argument which includes the conception of Utilitarianism. This is primary because targeted killing will lead to the protection of people who follow the principles of the social contract which we can extend across the flow into sub-point A of contention 2. As the affirmative side is supported by Utilitarianism, we must analyze the argument on the flow as an action which will directly or indirectly lead to protection of citizens depending on specific cases. Utilitarianism is the ultimate way to evaluate the morality of this case; e. g. if I were in Nazi Germany during the holocaust and I were hiding Jews in my attic, it would be the most moral for me to lie to a Nazi officer in order to save the lives of those individuals. You can extend this conception and example across the flow throughout the entire case. In order to reduce and/or eliminate the chance of terrorist attack upon a people, the source of conflict must be eliminated first. As the source and the chance of conflict are mutually the same, if one is eliminated, the other falls as well. But as they are mutually the same when the source is eliminated before the chance of conflict is eliminated, the opposite is true for the opposite situation. I. E. eliminating the chance of conflict without the elimination of the source is impossible because such a situation does not and will not exist in the war against terror and international defense policies. This argument became valid upon the first targeted killing success against a terrorist leader on a large scale e. g. the death of Osama bin Laden. To extend this argument, we must see the evidence which exists because of bin Laden's death. The evidence being the dispersed organization that Al Qaeda currently is after his death. Observers of the Al Qaeda organization explain thoroughly that four main "sects" have arisen slowly and time will show that the organization will split into four and civil conflicts will arise just like a state. We can extend the similarity of state warfare and targeted killing across the flow. This argument validates the resolution because we can see that the protection of individuals results from affirmation as explained in the logical card about the mutual existence of source of conflict and chance of conflict. By using Utilitarianism as a support, we can clearly see the existing morality in the affirmation and in this sole argument along with the several contentions I explain the extensions across the flow for including Utilitarianism. Thus, an affirmative ballot achieves the value premise for the stated extensions. Contention 2. Contention 2 is that which deals with the social contract. This being the "contract" which individuals accept upon entering society. This contract gives up individual liberties for the protection of inherent natural rights such as life. But at the point where an individual under the social contract endangers inherent natural rights of another, either directly or indirectly, they give up the protection of their natural rights which the social contract provided. Thus, by joining or becoming affiliated with a terrorist organization, an individual gives up moral protection of his/her life. Jeff McMahan writes: "By his own wrongful action, bin Laden had forfeited his right not to be killed if killing him was the best means of preventing innocent people from becoming victims of his terrorist activities. A liability justification is not, however, always decisive. " McMahan explains supports the affirmative side of the resolution in his explanation that terrorist leaders give up their right of protection of life. By committing acts which led directly and indirectly to violence and death of innocent individuals, bin Laden exited the social contract which gave him these rights of protection. This supports my argument because all terrorist leaders and agents have the same intent whether they meant to or not. This intent is that of harming innocents. By harming innocents, you exit the social contract and give up protection of your natural rights. This results in the targeted killing of the individual to be working within moral boundaries and being morally permissible. Contention 3. Targeted killing is considered part of armed conflict with the opposing individual or group. This argument serves as a support for the affirmative side and also as a block for the affirmative against the negative side. First, the block against the negative. The negative side may argue that refusal of the resolution is necessary because targeted killing does not include due process of the law. But in order to analyze the arguments, let me present the argument, and you can extend this factor across the flow to the end of the contention. Due process is not required in targeted killing because targeted killing is considered armed conflict against the targeted individual and his/her organization. E. G. during a war or exchange of conflict, states do not put enemy combatants through any process of law or legal policies; the individual is harmed and/or eliminated without ethical conduct. The same factor is present during targeted killing. Armed conflict is defined as violent conflict between nations, groups, or individuals which may be organized as aggression. You can extend this definition across your flow throughout the entire case. As targeted killing is aggressive and includes violent acts towards an individual or group of individuals (I. E. Al Qaeda), we must presume that it is armed conflict (e. g. undeclared battle or acts of war). This argument supports the affirmative value criterion of protecting of innocent lives in that we justify targeted killing as a morally permissible act which then justifies the first contention of the affirmative side. We can then extend this justification across the flow to the link and impact of the first contention. This argument also achieves the value premise of the round which is morality because we highlight the justification of targeted killing against that of killing an individual outside of the social contract; thus, this contention along with the first contention achieve ultimate morality hand-in-hand. For reasons previously stated, I urge an affirmative ballot. Thank you.