Official Tier Tournament Upper Tier Finale - Targeted Killing

Targeted killing is without a doubt a contentious issue in the political sphere. Proponents will assert that the killings are effective, ethical, and targeted specifically at belligerents, while detractors will argue they violate civil rights and contravene international law. This debate is not on either efficacy or legality, however - it is on morality. Accordingly, I will be arguing from a purely moral standpoint.To start, what is a targeted killing? Georgetown law professor Gary D. Solis identifies five key characteristics of a targeted killing.[1] They are:1) There is an armed conflict2) The target must be a single individual3) There is no reasonable chance to arrest said individual4) The killing is authorized by a ranking military leader with authority to authorize the killing5) The individual is actively participating in the armed conflictOther general rules include that civilians cannot be targeted, unless they are taking part in the armed conflict, and that collateral damage must be limited. Essentially a targeted killing is a precise, specific military action, only to be taken in a very specific circumstances, and is aimed to minimize civilian damage.Now, what are the moral justifications for this policy? One of the strongest arguments is also one of the most obvious - self-defense. A terrorist commander is, without doubt, someone who is violating the law. Their very existence threatens the lives of people, and while they may not be on a battlefield or directly bearing arms themselves, they are belligerents. In cases like these, targeted killings are a clearly moral way to defeat a terrorist threat. In general, an arrest by civilian forces is either impractical or impossible, leaving a military solution as the only way to solve the problem. Targeted killings present a method of carrying out the military solution that minimizes both military and civilian losses; a traditional military strike, in comparison, would present major risks to both.To give an example of a reasonable targeted killing, I present Anwar al-Awlaki. Awlaki, hiding in Yemen, was a known terrorist, endorsing the indiscriminate murder of Americans and supporting al-Qaeda, both morally and financially. Prior to al-Awlaki's killing, he had been ordered arrested "dead or alive" by a Yemeni judge.[2] Through cooperation with Yemen, the United States was able to kill Awlaki and his colleagues without any civilian damages or casualties.[3] This is a good example of an ethical targeted killing - Al-Awlaki was clearly not in a situation where arrest was reasonable, was clearly an active supporter of terrorism (armed conflict), and his killing was endorsed by the legal system of his host country, Yemen. His death ended his stint as a leader of al-Qaeda and prevented his vocal support of terrorism. My opponent has a tough burden here - he must show why this sort of action isn't ever acceptable.Another important reason why targeted killing is morally acceptable is that it is, on balance, effective. Essentially, the argument goes like this:A) Terrorist groups do terrible thingsC) Targeted killings stop terrorist groupsC) Terrorist groups that are subject to targeted killing lose the ability to do terrible things.Targeted killings significantly disrupt terrorist groups by destabilizing them. Terrorist groups are known to deny that their leaders have been killed in a desperate attempt to avoid a power struggle within the group. After targeted killings, terrorist groups have been known to become paranoid about spies in their midst, further adding to the internal turmoil that a terror organization will face in the midst of the death of its leader.[4] This evidence is corroborated by Dr. Daniel Statman, a professor at the University of Haifa in Israel, who notes that "The personal charisma and professional skills of the leaders and key figures of certain organizations are crucial to the success of their organizations, something that is especially true with regard to terror organizations that operate underground with no clear institutional structure. It is reasonable to assume that killing such individuals will gradually make it more difficult for the terror machinery to function".[5] In other words, by cutting off the head of the terrorist organization, the rest will slowly wither away.What we can gather from this is that targeted killings are supported by two key moral ideas: self-defense and effectiveness. These present sufficient evidence that targeted killing is, in fact, a morally permissible foreign policy tool. I look forward to seeing my opponent's arguments.References:1. http://books.google.com...2. http://www.aljazeera.com...3. http://www.bbc.co.uk...4. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu... (pg. 90-91)5. http://www.ucl.ac.uk...