Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissable Foreign Policy Tool

In modern democratic societies, we have something that makes us different from certain other countries, such as Syria, North Korea, and China (to name but a few. ) Moreover, this 'something' not only makes us different - it makes us better. It makes our own countries freer and fairer places to live, places where people can go about their business, free from the oppressive tyranny of the power of the State. This something is the Rule of Law. What is the Rule of Law? It can be a rather slippery concept to define, much like democracy or human rights. Many distinguished legal minds have attempted it, but I rather prefer the definition of the Oxford Professor of English Law Albert Dicey, who wrote in 1867, "We mean [by the Rule of Law] that no man is punishable or can lawfully be made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land. " Dicey further went on to say: "We mean in the second place [of the Rule of Law] that with us no man is above the law, but that here every man. .. is subject to the ordinary law of the realm. " The language is slightly archaic now, but the meaning is clear. All men (and women) are equal before the law, and no person should be subjected to State punishment unless they have broken the law, and can be proven to have done so in a court of law. From these principles, we can derive other fundamental concepts of legal theory, much of which are now enshrined in works such the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and which are so fundamental that many people often take them for granted. Sadly, my opponent appears to be one of those people. It is my case that she fails to understand that the powers that she proposes to give to states are so grossly contrary to the rule of law, that if given they would lead to a terrible erosion of the freedoms that we all enjoy today, and a re-emergence of the tyranny that so rightly appalls us in certain other countries of this world. And if that is not immoral, then nothing is. My opponent supports her case by appealing to three contentions, namely: 1. It gets rid of bad people 2. An eye for an eye 3. Justice Let me start by addressing 2 and 3. Notice that these are mutually contradictory, and that my opponent is trying to have her cake and eat it. You cannot simultaneously argue in favour of justice and the doctrine of 'an eye of an eye' - you have to come down in favour of one or the other. And my opponent actually seems to understand this, despite not admitting it. Notice how she says: "And no, I am not saying if someone killed your family member you should kill them. " But wait, she defined the aforementioned doctrine to mean: "a person who has injured another person receives the same injury in compensation. " By this doctrine, if someone kills your family member, then going and killing them is precisely what you should do! But yet she clearly draws back from supporting this action, thereby undermining her entire position. And of course, the reason she draws back is that she knows, like I do, and like I'm sure most people reading this also know, that while murderers of course deserve justice, going out and arbitrarily murdering them yourself is not justice, and that is not the way to respond to their crimes. So 'eye for an eye' has been discredited as a valid reason. What about justice? Is it just to allow states to kill any foreign national who they perceive to be a threat (which is how my opponent defined targeted killing. ) The best way to answer this is to look at the first contention, where my opponent claims that such a policy would 'get rid of bad people. ' Indeed, such a policy might indeed rid the world of bad people, and I for one am not going to argue for one second that Bin Laden was anything other than a vile mass-murderer - although I would point out that the US Attorney General Eric Holder explicitly denied that the raid that killed Bin Laden was an assassinate mission [1] However, does my opponent really see nothing wrong or dangerous in giving states the arbitrary power to decide whether or not a given foreign national is a threat, and thus deserving of assassination. Consider for instance the UK businessman Christopher Tappin, who was recently extradited to the US to face charges of selling batteries for Iranian missiles. [2] Now, Mr Tappin may or may not be guilty of the offences for which he is charged, but nevertheless it is absurd to argue that if guilty, his actions would merit execution. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the US authorities currently believe him to be a threat. Does my opponent really think that the US has the moral right to assassinate Mr Tappin, simply because they view him as a threat - because that is what her resolution implies! The truth is that if given this power, States will not confine it to simply the 'blatantly obvious' cases, such as Bin Laden, and it is naive to assume that they will. Furthermore, Mr Tappin might not even be guilty. Just because the state views someone as a threat, that does not necessarily imply that that person is actually a threat. People are fallible and can make mistakes, or be swayed by dubious vested interests. The reason why we have the rule of law is precisely to ensure that, as far as reasonably possible, only the guilty, and not the innocent, are punished. By giving the state the power to kill anyone it perceives to be a threat, my opponent is seeking to remove this most basic of protections. How would she feel if a member of her own family were killed by forces acting on behalf of the British government, who genuinely (but incorrectly) believed that they were involved in terrorism? In response to all of this, my opponent might argue that I've missed the point, and that with regard to people like Bin Laden, their guilt is so obvious that there can be no realistic prospect of their innocence. My response is that if their guilt is really that obvious, then we should have no trouble at all putting them on trial, convicting them of their crimes through the judicial process and imposing on them an appropriate sentence for their crimes - which could, if necessary, include the death penalty, if prescribed by law. This to me is the most sensible and pragmatic option, which preserves freedom, justice and the Rule of Law. [1] = . http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2] = . http://www.bbc.co.uk...