Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

I affirm: Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool Targeted Killing: the premeditated, preemptive, and deliberate killing of an individual or individuals known to represent a clear and present threat to the safety and security of a state. (Hunter). Ob. 1: Targeted Killing is an individual, not collective matter. Anderson writes, “Targeted killing consists of using deadly force, characterized by the identification of and then strike against an individual marked to be killed. It is distinguished, among other things, by making an individualized determination of a person to be killed, rather than simply identifying, for example, a mass of enemy combatants to attack as a whole.” Morally permissible: an act that is allowable by moral standards, but not necessarily a morally good act. Ob. 2: Pen analogy. We would say it is morally permissible for me to pick up a pen, but we wouldn’t say I am acting morally via picking up the pen. Ob. 3: The resolution uses the word tool, meaning it is only one of many types of foreign policy instruments in dealing with international relations, defense and war matters, etc. Thus, it is not the only option and outside the bounds of the resolution to burden the Aff with proving its morally permissible in all circumstances. The value for the round is Moral Permissibility, since it is the inherent value and the core question of the resolution. The value criterion is the Right of Self-Defense. First warrant is international law. Paust writes, ”…an armed attack by a non-state actor on a state…can trigger the right of self-defense addressed in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, even if selective respon- sive force directed against a non-state actor occurs within a foreign country. 3 Article 51 of the Charter expressly affirms the right of a state to respond defensively “if an armed attack occurs…” Second warrant is moral right of self-defense. John Locke writes, "The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me." C1: 9/11 Justifies Targeted Killing Paust [2] writes, “In 2001, the United Nations Security Council and NATO recognized that the non-state al Qaeda armed attacks on September 11, 2001 triggered rights of individual and collective self-defense under the United Nations Charter and the North Atlantic Treaty. Use of force against al Qaeda by the United States on October 7, 2001 in Afghanistan was justified, and justifiable, as self-defense against ongoing processes of armed attack on the United States, its embassies, its military, and other U.S. nationals abroad…Neither the Security Council nor NATO expected that there must be geographic or time limits that might condition permissibility of U.S. measures of self-defense against al Qaeda, nor was there an expectation that measures of self-defense against al Qaeda in Afghanistan would require the consent of the Afghan government or the existence of an armed conflict with the United States. == *As per rules, rebuttals will begin next round. == [1] Paust. Self-Defense Targetings of Non-State Actors ]and Permissibility of U.S. Use of Drones in Pakistan (December 8, 2009). Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, Vol. 19, No. 2, p. 237, 2010; U of Houston Law Center No. 2009-A-36. [2] Locke. Locke. Of the State of War. Two Treatises on Government. [3] Anderson. “'Efficiency'Jus in Bello and 'Efficiency' Jus Ad Bellum in the Practice of Targeted Killing