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

http://debate-central.ncpa.org... I will defend Kant's categorical imperative. This is best summarized by its first formulation: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This argues in favor of a "pure morality" that does not interject personal or subjective adulterants, regardless of who is acting (Weeks, 2007). Weeks, David (2007). "Common LD Values." Debate Central. http://debate-central.ncpa.org.... Retired U.S. Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman writes in his book On Killing that the common view of targeted killings is grossly distorted. This manipulation of "pure morality" is driven by a number of factors. The first is what he terms "cultural distance," arguing that "racial and ethnic differences…permit the killer to dehumanize the victim" (Grossman, 2009). The second is moral superiority. The perpetrator exhibits a "kind of intense belief in moral superiority." The third is mechanical distance. Humans are reduced to objects by "the sterile, Nintendo-game unreality of killing through a TV screen, a thermal sight, a sniper sight or some other kind of mechanical buffer that permits the killer to deny the humanity of his victim." Heeding Grossman's call, writer Mehdi Hasan raises the question of categorical imperatives by arguing that; "This isn't complicated; there are no shades of grey here. Do we disapprove of car bombings and drive-by shootings, or not? Do we consistently condemn state-sponsored, extrajudicial killings as acts of pure terror, no matter where in the world, or on whose orders, they occur? Or do we shrug our shoulders, turn a blind eye and continue our descent into lawless barbarism?" (Hasan, 2012). Hasan, Medhi (2012). "Iran's nuclear scientists are not being assassinated. They are being murdered," The Guardian, Jan 16, http://www.guardian.co.uk... ... red-murder. Another important aspect of justice is the method by which targeted killings are selected and approved. The ability to carry out targeted killings is a massive expansion in the role of government. Hasan argues that "we have sleepwalked into a situation where governments have arrogated to themselves the right to murder their enemies abroad" (Hasan, 2012). Returning to the founding constitutional principles, Hasan asks; "How many more of our values will we shred in the name of security? Once we have allowed our governments to order the killing of fellow citizens, fellow human beings, in secret, without oversight or accountability, what other powers will we dare deny them?" (Hasan, 2012). Byman continues that line of reasoning by connecting government norms of justice to the categorical imperative. Byman notes that "The killings also raise normative problems. There is a general rule in foreign policy against the elimination of world leaders, and this norm has served the United States well. Neither the U.S. government nor the Israeli one, for that matter, would want targeted killings to become a widely used instrument, since this would make its own citizens and officials more vulnerable" (Byman, 2006). Byman, Daniel (2006). "Do Targeted Killings Work?" Foreign Affairs, Mar-Apr, p. 95, Lexis. The categorical imperative framing can drastically undermine the justification for targeted killing. New York University law professor Jeremy Waldron makes the case very effectively: "What happens when a norm, N, becomes law? … We are not responsible for all uses of N but,…if N is to be part of the law of armed conflict, we ought to consider for starters whether we are comfortable with N in the hands of our enemies…We should consider whether we are comfortable with N in the hands of al Qaida or Hamas or some state that supports terrorism" (Waldron, 2011). Waldron, Jeremy (2011). "Can Targeted Killing Work as a Neutral Principle?" New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, Mar 1, Lexis. A number of answers can also be raised to the cost-benefit/utilitarian justifications raised by the Affirmative. First, targeted killings murder innocent civilians. For instance, the U.S. faces a difficult dilemma when employing drone strikes: if the strike is too large then innocent civilians will be killed, but if the strike is too small then the targets may escape. Moreover, the death of innocent civilians robs the operation of credibility and acts as a rallying cry to perform more attacks (more on this below). Second, dead men tell no tales. The targets all share a common characteristic: they possess the capability to employ deadly skills, whether it is manufacturing an IED or a nuclear weapon. This is why Byman argues that "arresting terrorists, when possible, is a much better course" (Byman, 2006). His reasoning? "After an arrest, security forces can interrogate the suspect and learn about future plots and additional operatives, who can then be arrested too. Killing suspects prevents them from striking, but dead men also tell no tales" (Byman, 2006). Third, targeted killing often encourages retaliation and more innocent death. The groups that are targeted often "up the stakes in horrific ways when subjected to a targeted-killing campaign" (Byman, 2006). The same difficulty arises in the War on Terror that arises in the War on Drugs: when a kingpin falls, someone is ready to take their place. Therefore, the symbolic victory of killing a terror leader is fleeting and insignificant when weighed against the deaths that often accompany the blowback. Fourth, targeted killings make martyrs of the victims, which catalyze the movements they represent. One popular example is Hezbollah. When Israel killed a key leader, Musawi Hezbollah, his death became a rallying cry for the organization. Khaled Hroub, a Cambridge University-based expert on Hamas, argues targeted killings only increase popular legitimacy (Byman, 2006). Finally, targeted killings make peace negotiations impossible, as it is incredibly difficult to broker a mutual cease-fire while the policy of targeted killing remains on the table (Byman, 2006). I will offer three decision-making criterion: (a) The moral agent. If the moral agent is an everyday citizen weighing a categorical imperative, it benefits the negative. We do not control the levers of policy-making and should make the decision to limit targeted killings since we do not employ the power to determine who will be targeted and using which methods. (b) Protecting innocent lives. The high number of civilian casualties must be weighed from a neutral standpoint. Targeted killing lowers the moral standing of the killer by adopting terror tactics. (c) Establishing effective alternatives. Alternate methods of punishment, such as interrogating arrested terror suspects, are far more effective.