Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

the appearance of the right may often lead us to the wrong" -Horace It is because the fact that most often the best looking object isn't the best overall option, and because behind the lesser appealing object is more logical options while the more appealing object is a cover for despair. this is to say that just because people might not like the sound of targeted killing at first it proves to be more logical then allowing many more to die. Resolved: 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 through affiliations with terrorist groups, or individuals Morally- concerned with or derived from the code of behavior that is considered right or acceptable Foreign policy- The diplomatic policy of a nation in its interactions with other nations the highest value in today's debate is that of utilitarianism or the greatest good for the greatest number of people, because of the fact that targeted killing takes out the few individuals who could hurt the global community on a mass level. i uphold this with the value criterion of ethical motives, or the motivation based on the ideas of right and wrong Contention 1) The morality of targeted killing is clear when compared with alternative options. First, invading a civilian area inevitably leads to the deaths and injury of far more people, mostly innocent people, than careful use of targeted killing. Second, such actions bring death, misery, and destruction to people who are only minimally involved (if at all) in, or responsible for, terror or military attacks, whereas with targeted killing, collateral damage is significantly reduced (though not prevented altogether). Hence, targeted killing is the preferable method not only because, on a utilitarian calculation, it saves lives—a very weighty moral consideration—but also because it is more commensurate with a fundamental condition of justified self-defense, namely, that those killed are responsible for the threat posed. Contention 2) The argument that only courts can properly administer retribution is flawed because most terrorist cannot be tried. sub point A) Courts are a good thing but or illogical when discussing foreign killing No doubt there are powerful social and moral reasons or making the courts the only body that administers retribution in society, but these reasons bear no relevance on the justification of retribution per se, which, in principle, can be achieved outside the courtroom too. In the case of terrorists, the problem that arises is that retribution through the legal system is not an option with regard to most of them, because the countries that harbor them hardly ever bring them to trial within their territories, nor do they extradite them to be tried in a foreign domestic or international court. Since in such cases, retribution through the legal system is unfeasible, and if we take seriously the idea that evildoers deserve punishment, the inevitable conclusion is that retribution can, or must,14 be imposed by some other entity, such as the army of the injured country. sub point B) The role of the courts is limited as there is less need for the establishment of fact Second, the role of courts in establishing the facts of the matter and the blameworthiness of the alleged criminal seems less significant in the context of terrorists because many of them are only too happy to admit their participation in the relevant crimes or their active membership and roles in the relevant organizations. Contention 3) Targeted killing is allowed by international law and therefore is shown to be morally and legally permissible As for international human rights laws, the possibility of using deadly force against individuals who are threatening the security of the state has not been rejected altogether even by international human rights bodies. The Human Rights Committee, in its response to the Israeli report on the practice of targeted killings, notes only that "before resorting to the use of deadly force, all measures to arrest a person suspected of being in the process of committing acts of terror must be exhausted."It adds that such operations must never be carried out for purposes of retribution or revenge, thus implying that they may be legitimate if intended at preemptive. This is to say international law allows targeted killing which means it is already ok with a high majority of the global community and therefore is morally permissible Sources Daniel Statman (2004) "Targeted Killing," Theoretical inquires in law: Vol, 5: No, 1, Article 7 Gabriella Blum and Philip Heymann, "Law & Policy of targeted killing," Harvard National Security journal. June 27 2010