Debate Drs NFL LD March April 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy
March/April 2012 LD Topic Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.
Debate Doctors Debate Briefs
Contents
EXAMINING THE RESOLUTION ........................................................................................4 AFFIRMATIVE CASE 1: THE GREATEST HAPPINESS ...................................................6 AFFIRMATIVE CASE GREATEST HAPPINESS ..............................................................7 CONTENTION 1: TERRORISM HAS CREATED A NEW KIND OF WAR .....................7 CONTENTION 3: TARGETED KILLING IS THE MORAL CHOICE ..............................8 AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS TO POSSIBLE NEGATIVE ATTACKS...................................9 AFFIRMATIVE CASE 2: DUTY ........................................................................................... 10 AFFIRMATIVE CASE: DUTY ............................................................................................ 11 CONTENTION 1: SOLDIERS ARE BY INTERNATIONAL ACCORD INNOCENT ..... 11 CONTENTION 2: KILLING A SOLDIER TO SAVE THE LIVES OF THOSE HE OR SHE WOULD KILL IS MORAL ...................................................................................... 12 CONTENTION 3: KILLING ONE I PERSON TO SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY INNOCENT PERSONS IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE .................................................. 12 AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS TO POSSIBLE NEGATIVE ATTACKS................................. 14 NEGATIVE CASE 1: UTILITY ........................................................................................... 15 NEGATIVE CASE: UTILITY .............................................................................................. 16 CONTENTION 1: TARGETED KILLING IS AGAINST HAGUE REGULATIONS ...... 16 CONTENTION 2: SELF-DEFENSE ALONE IS NOT A REASON FOR TARGETED KILLING .......................................................................................................................... 17 CONTENTION 3: KILLING INNOCENTS IS NEVER RIGHT ....................................... 17 ANSWERS TO POSSIBLE AFFIRMATIVE ATTACKS ..................................................... 18 NEGATIVE CASE 2: COMMON GOOD ............................................................................ 20 NEGTIVE CASE: COMMON GOOD .................................................................................. 21 CONTENTION 1: THE NEED TO CONSTRAIN CONFLICT IS WIDELY RECOGNIZED ................................................................................................................. 21 CONTENTION 2: THE MILITARY OPTION IS NOT EFFECTIVE ............................... 21 CONTENTION 3: IF WAR IS MORAL WHY DOES IT MAKE SO MANY PEOPLE SAD? ................................................................................................................................ 22 ANSWERS TO POSSIBLE AFFIRMATIVE ATTACKS ..................................................... 23 AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE ................................................................................................. 25 TARGETED KILLING IS MORAL...................................................................................... 26 TARGETED KILLING IS LEGAL ....................................................................................... 27 TARGETED KILLING IS SELF DEFENSE ......................................................................... 28 Debate Doctors 2012 1 Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy
TARGETED KILLING SAVES LIVES ................................................................................ 30 TARGETED KILLING NO LESS MORAL THAN CONVENTIONAL WAR ..................... 31 LOCATION DOES NOT PROTECT A TERRORIST .......................................................... 32 KILLING MORALLY INNOCENT SOLDIERS CAN BE MORAL .................................... 33 KILLING CIVILIANS IS SOMETIMES NECESSARY AND MORAL ............................... 34 WAR CAN BE MORAL ....................................................................................................... 35 SOLDIERS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MORALITY OF THE WAR ................. 36 SOLDIERS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MORALITY OF THE WAR ................. 37 ANY SOLDIER IS A TARGET IN WAR ............................................................................. 38 ANY SOLDIER IS A TARGET IN WAR ............................................................................. 39 WAR CAN BE MORAL ....................................................................................................... 40 SOLDIERS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MORALITY OF THE WAR ................. 41 SOLDIERS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MORALITY OF THE WAR ................. 42 ANY SOLDIER IS A TARGET IN WAR ............................................................................. 43 ANY SOLDIER IS A TARGET IN WAR ............................................................................. 44 NEGATIVE EVIDENCE ........................................................................................................ 45 TARGETED KILLING IS IMMORAL ................................................................................. 46 THE TRUE MOTIVE FOR TARGETED KILLING IS RETRIBUTION NOT SAVING LIVES ................................................................................................................................... 47 KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IS ALWAYS WRONG ..................................................... 48 KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IS ALWAYS WRONG ..................................................... 49 KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IS ALWAYS WRONG ..................................................... 50 TARGETED KILLING IS AGAINST HAGUE REGULATIONS ........................................ 51 SELF-DEFENSE ALONE IS NOT A REASON FOR TARGETED KILLING ..................... 52 TARGETED KILLING KILLS INNOCENTS AND ESCALATES TENSIONS................... 53 THE NEED TO CONSTRAIN CONFLICT IS WIDELY RECOGNIZED ............................ 54 WAR IS A POLITICAL TOOL ............................................................................................ 55 PACIFISM SEEKS TO DISMANTLE THE NEED FOR WAR ............................................ 56 THE MILITARY OPTION IS NOT EFFECTIVE ................................................................. 57 WAR ENDANGERS THE DEMOCRATIC STATE ............................................................. 58 RELIGIOUS PACIFISM IS RELEVANT TO THE WORLD ............................................... 59 JUST WAR IS A CHRISTIAN CONCEPT ........................................................................... 60 IF WAR IS MORAL WHY DOES IT MAKE SO MANY PEOPLE SAD? ........................... 61 Debate Doctors 2012 2 Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy
WAR IS NOT A LEGITIMATE COURSE OF ACTION THUS IMMORAL ....................... 62 NON-COMBATANTS SHOULD NOT BE KILLED ........................................................... 63 WAR IS NOT JUST ON BOTH SIDES SOMETIMES ON NEITHER SIDE..................... 64 MORAL JUSTIFICATION IS NOT A GOOD EXPLANATION FOR WAR ....................... 65 JUST WAR IS A CHRISTIAN CONCEPT ........................................................................... 66 IF WAR IS MORAL WHY DOES IT MAKE SO MANY PEOPLE SAD? ........................... 67 WAR IS NOT A LEGITIMATE COURSE OF ACTION THUS IMMORAL ....................... 68 NON-COMBATANTS SHOULD NOT BE KILLED ........................................................... 69 WAR IS NOT JUST ON BOTH SIDES SOMETIMES ON NEITHER SIDE..................... 70 MORAL JUSTIFICATION IS NOT A GOOD EXPLANATION FOR WAR ....................... 71 THE CAPACITY TO AFFECT CHANGE IS LIMITED ...................................................... 72
Debate Doctors 2012
EXAMINING THE RESOLUTION

Dylan Lee, Editor
At its core, targeted killing is a nice way of saying assassination without the negative connotations that assassination has associated with it. The point might be made that an individual assassinates but a nation does not. We can split hairs all we want but, at the end of the day, specific people are killed. The interesting term in this resolution is foreign policy. While every government probably has some security agency that carries out targeted killings from time to time in order to eliminate a person or group that poses an extreme threat, no government has come out and actually declared that targeted killing is now our foreign policy. Affirmative and negative want to use this term to their advantage.
Affirmative
As an affirmative foreign policy tool, targeted killing puts nations that harbor terrorists on notice that they will not be allowed to continue that practice and that those individuals who pose threats to other nations will be targeted and eliminated on the harboring nation s soil. Targeted killing used this way provides a powerful incentive for the nations to work together so that the government of the nation where the terrorists have taken refuge deals with the terrorists. This allows that nation to be more highly esteemed in the world and it makes friends with the other nations of the world. Terrorism is not a local threat but a threat to world peace and as such every nation should be willing to do its part to eliminate this danger to the world. Affirmative will also want to paint terrorism as a war a new kind of war wherein nations are not fighting nations but rather nations are fighting groups of fanatical people. These groups may not have one home country and thus have no national law to answer to. Additionally, as soldiers in a war, those connected to terrorist groups must be treated as soldiers and as such are subject to attack by their opponents.
Debate Doctors 2012
Negative
Negative will want to contend that adopting targeted killing as an official foreign policy is not merely a policy that attacks rogue terrorists. That is what we do now and it is not an official foreign policy. The definition of foreign policy is the official ways in which a government has decided to deal with other countries, in relation to trade, defence, etc. To adopt targeted killing as a foreign policy means that we are telling the rest of the world that we will kill anyone who we do not like at any time we like. This is an untenable position for any country. It places the country in a position that says that country is at war with the rest of the world. It undermines global peace. And if we apply it to a country like the U.S. we see that the country adopting this policy is placing itself in the role of bully to the world. To put it plainly, Affirmative wants the country to become a self-proclaimed assassin. Anyone that gets on our bad side is in danger. This is going to put every other country in the world on alert and undermine any hope of world peace. Further, such a policy encourage other countries to respond in kind. If the resolution is affirmed, we could imagine a world where assassins are roaming in every country looking for someone that has gotten crossways with someone in power in a foreign government. No one would be safe. And those who denounce terrorists will have become that which they say they abhor.
Good Luck to both sides.
Debate Doctors 2012
AFFIRMATIVE CASE 1: THE GREATEST HAPPINESS
This case takes the Greatest Happiness Principle for its value. Notice it does not say for the greatest number. It may be a matter of semantics, but it may also avoid that argument that 50.1% gets to dictate to 49.9%. Besides, in the case of this resolution it is clear that the choice is whether declaring a national foreign policy that protects a nations people and interests is moral. A government is created to protect the people in that society. That is the job of the government. Such a policy does not prevent peaceful negotiation but it does tell those who operate outside the law of any national or international moral boundaries that they can be hunted down and killed for their disregard of law. The modern terrorist would like to be seen as a soldier in a war. As such, a soldier is subject to being killed by the enemy. Targeted killing does this. It allows war to be waged on the terrorist and not the country. The terrorist may hide in a country without permission. Thus, targeted killing is simply acknowledging that terrorism is a new kind of war waged against groups of people and not against nations. The criterion of least harm demonstrates that these terrorists can be dealt with while inflicting the least harm to those around the person. This leads to the greatest happiness of all because the bad guy is eliminated and the good people are spared to continue living their lives.
Debate Doctors 2012
AFFIRMATIVE CASE GREATEST HAPPINESS

I am firmly resolved that: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. The value I will uphold in this debate is The Greatest Happiness John Stuart Mill (1879). Utilitarianism. Ch. 1. Project Gutenberg. February 22, 2004 the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality; which may accordingly be defined, the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of which an existence such as has been described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation. The criterion for this debate should be least harm That solution which brings the least harm should be the criterion by which this debate is judged.
CONTENTION 1: TERRORISM HAS CREATED A NEW KIND OF WAR

Gary Solis [2007] TARGETED KILLING AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT Naval War CoUege Review, Spring 2007, Vol. 60, No. On 3 November 2002, over the desert near Sanaa, Yemen, a Central Intelligence Agencycontrolled Predator drone aircraft tracked an SUV containing six men. One of the six, Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, was known to be a senior al-Qa'ida lieutenant suspected of having played a major role in the 2000 bombing of the destroyer USS Cole. He "was on a list of 'high-value' targets whose elimination, by capture or death, had been called for by President Bush." The United States and Yemen had tracked al-Harethi's movements for months. Now, away from any inhabited area, the Predator fired a Hellfire missile at the vehicle. The six occupants, including al-Harethi, were killed.'^ That was a targeted killing. In today's new age of nonstate actors engaging in transnational terrorist violence, targeting parameters must change. Laws of armed conflict agreed upon in another era should be interpreted to recognize the new reality. While some will disagree, the killing of al-Harethi should be considered as being in accord with the law of armed conflict.
CONTENTION 2: ANY SOLDIER IS A TARGET IN WAR Newsweek International (April 9, 2007): "Periscope.(emotional damage)(Brief article)." NA. General OneFile. Gale. 22 Aug. 2008 There may be an upside to emotional damage, says a recent University of Southern California study. By asking how their subjects would react in various hypothetical scenarios, researchers found that damage to a key emotion-processing center, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, makes people more likely to make tough "utilitarian" choices that maximize public welfare, like shooting an HIV-positive friend who intends to infect others. Debate Doctors 2012 7 Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy
Obviously, it is both logical and moral to target the terrorist that threatens not only our society but many in the global society.
CONTENTION 3: TARGETED KILLING IS THE MORAL CHOICE

Ceulemans, C. (Winter 2007). The moral equality of combatants. (Essay). Parameters. , 37, 4. p.99(11). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via GaleCarl [Ceulemans holds a Ph.D. in political science from the Vrije Universiteit in Brussels. He teaches in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and holds a Chair of Philosophy at the Royal Military Academy. ] According to the Just War tradition a war can only be just if two sets of principles are satisfied. (1) First there is the jus ad bellum. These principles tell us when it is just to start a war. There has to be a good reason or a just cause in order for a war to be morally permissible (self-defense, defense of others, putting a stop to human rights violations). The decision to go to war has to be taken by a legitimate authority. Those who wage war need to be motivated by good intentions (desire to promote a more stable peace). War should not only be a last resort (necessity), it must also offer a reasonable chance of success. Moreover, the good the warring party hopes to obtain should outweigh the evil caused by the war (proportionality). The second set of principles, the jus in bello or the right in the war, focuses on the moral constraints that need to be observed during hostilities. Noncombatants must never be the intentional target of military actions (discrimination), and the military utility of a particular act of war has to outweigh the damage it will cause.
Targeted killing meets this test. It allows a military operation to target and eliminate those individuals that threaten the societys safety while saving the lives of both sides that would be lost in a direct battle. When the terrorist leader is killed, it prevents operations from taking place and throws the organization into chaos. Targeted killing is the best approach in foreign policy situations. Targeted killing produce the greatest happiness because war does not have to be declared on another country. Cooperation between the two governments allows the terrorist to be eliminated while the peace between the two countries remains strong. And in the event that a country is harboring terrorists and will not cooperate, we have seen that targeted killing does not provoke war. Again, we do the least harm to prevent greater harm and thus we uphold the greatest happiness. I see nothing but an affirmative vote in this debate.
Debate Doctors 2012
AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS TO POSSIBLE NEGATIVE ATTACKS (attacks

in red, answers in black) The value and criteria are the same thing Not so. In the situation described in the resolution, harm must be done to one person or to many people. If the value I wish to uphold is greatest happiness, I must examine this situation to discover what will bring the greatest happiness. In this instance that which will bring the greatest happiness is that which causes the least harm. Therefore, the criterion for judging whether we reach the greatest happiness is least harm. They are not the same thing. For negatives argument to stand it must work for all instances of greatest happiness. If greatest happiness and least harm were the same thing, then in deciding which movie a group of friends were going to see would be based on least harm. Yet, no harm will come to them if they do not go to the movie which most want to see. The result would simply be that the greatest happiness would not be achieved. The reasoning between the value and the criteria is circular The reasoning is not circular but vertical. In order to gain the greatest happiness in this instance one must first meet the standard of doing the least harm. Once that standard has been met, we may then rise to the final level which is greatest happiness. If we think of the pairing as a house and its foundation, least harm is the foundation, and greatest happiness is the house. As the house rests upon the foundation so to does greatest happiness rest on least harm. Mill is inadequate to provide proof of the situation The evidence in the case demonstrates that once emotions are not allowed to crowd our judgment, the only logical and moral course of action is that advocated by Affirmative. Morality does not rest upon logic Morality very much rest on logic. The negative is trying demonstrate morality through logic albeit ineffective logic. My evidence is clear on this.
The targeted victim is not engaging in a violent act of war It is well known who the leaders of a movement are. Targeting and killing those individuals saves lives on both sides. Additionally, that fact that the person is in an ongoing and active relationship with the terrorists means that they are engaging in an act of war by continuing that relationship and leadership role.
Debate Doctors 2012
AFFIRMATIVE CASE 2: DUTY

This case makes the case for killing in war. International law tells us that soldiers are innocent when they take the life of other soldiers in combat. A soldier knows that he saves many of his friends who are innocent soldiers by killing an enemy soldier who is also innocent. This is morally permissible. Terrorists are engaged in a war. They have declared war on different nations while hiding in other nations. That they should be killed by those that they are at war with is moral within the rules of war.
Debate Doctors 2012
10
AFFIRMATIVE CASE: DUTY

I am resolved that: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. .
The value I will uphold in this debate is duty Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2006. the binding or obligatory force of something that is morally or legally right; moral or legal obligation. The criterion I will up hold is jus in bello US Military Dictionary. (2002) The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military. Copyright 2001, 2002 by Oxford University Press, Inc. The aspect of the international law of war which addresses the practices forbidden to belligerents during a war. Jus in bello is the rule that govern justice in war. The rules provide standards for fighting war once the ruling leaders of the society have declared war. Just war theory tells us that two opposing armies are entitled to try to win and as long as the actions of one combatant is aimed at another combatant the actions are just and without blame. In essence we are told what is morally permissible.
CONTENTION 1: SOLDIERS ARE BY INTERNATIONAL ACCORD INNOCENT

Ceulemans, C. (Winter 2007). The moral equality of combatants. (Essay). Parameters. , 37, 4. p.99(11). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via GaleCarl [Ceulemans holds a Ph.D. in political science from the Vrije Universiteit in Brussels. He teaches in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and holds a Chair of Philosophy at the Royal Military Academy. ] At the core of the Just War tradition is the fundamental doctrine of the moral equality of combatants. Basically this doctrine says that the realm of responsibility of combatants on all sides is equally limited to that of the jus in bello. Combatants cannot be held responsible for the just or unjust nature of the war in which they participate. The ad bellum responsibility belongs solely to the political decision makers.
Debate Doctors 2012
11
CONTENTION 2: KILLING A SOLDIER TO SAVE THE LIVES OF THOSE HE OR SHE WOULD KILL IS MORAL
Overland, G. (Dec 2006). Killing Soldiers. Ethics & International Affairs. , 20, 4. p.455(21). Retrieved August 18, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: A riddle in the ethics of war concerns whether lethal defensive force may be justifiably used against aggressing soldiers who are morally innocent. In this essay I argue that although there might be reasons for excusing soldiers as individuals, one may be justified in using defensive force against them provided that they have initiated threatening behavior and that our interpretation of that behavior as threatening is reasonable.
CONTENTION 3: KILLING ONE I PERSON TO SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY INNOCENT PERSONS IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE
It must be evident that if one life is valuable, then each person in a group must be just as valuable. And losing any one life is a tragedy, especially if that life taken is an innocent life. However, there are incidents as described in this speech that provide the terrible choice outlined in the resolution. The most terrible of all situations must be to find oneself in the middle of a battle where one must kill to safe himself or herself and those who depend on your actions. That soldier/terrorist planning a bombing where innocent people will be killed is conducting war and the only choice a government has is to kill that enemy soldier or watch as he kills many innocent people. Killing that one soldier/terrorist in order to save many innocent persons is morally permissible.
Overland, G. (Dec 2006). Killing Soldiers. Ethics & International Affairs. , 20, 4. p.455(21). Retrieved August 18, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: A riddle in the ethics of war concerns whether lethal defensive force may be justifiably used against aggressing soldiers who are morally innocent. In this essay I argue that although there might be reasons for excusing soldiers as individuals, one may be justified in using defensive force against them provided that they have initiated threatening behavior and that our interpretation of that behavior as threatening is reasonable. This sentiment is echoed in Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale:
Debate Doctors 2012
12
Thus: (1) states can go to war for the sake of formal sovereignty with no need to show that, beyond that formal sovereignty, any vital interests are in clear and imminent danger, and (2) once they actually do wage war, they can kill any enemy soldier, regardless of the personal danger posed by or responsibility of those being killed.
It is plain that the resolution is true. In a situation where a government finds its society threatened in the fashion that terrorism conducts itself, the only response that is morally responsible is targeted killing. The nation does not have to declare war on another nation. Rather the nations work together to target and eliminate terrorists who have no allegiance to any country but only to their cause. And those few times when a country like Pakistan harbors terrorists, we have seen that targeted killing is effective at eliminating the threat from the terrorist and does not provoke war between the two nations. Granted formal protests from the harboring nation may be lodged but nothing significant comes from the action. Lives are saved on both sides and a dangerous threat is eliminated. The targeted terrorist soldier is given his due and the government meets its duty. I ask for the Affirmative vote in this debate.
Debate Doctors 2012
13
AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS TO POSSIBLE NEGATIVE ATTACKS (attacks

in red, answers in black)
Duty is not a value 1. Duty by definition is obligatory. Obligation is often used as a value. 2. Duty is valued by many people especially when that duty is to ones country. 3. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines value as the worth of something. Merriam Webster Online dictionary defines value as something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable. I have shown that Duty meets these definitions. War is not an acceptable example of the resolution War is the best example of the resolution. First, it is historically relevant. It is an established fact that terrorism is a form of war. Those who engage in it admit to being in a war against their targets. Soldiers on both sides are acting in good faith that the government has sent them on a just cause. Therefore, killing one morally soldier or one small group of soldiers is morally permissible under international rules of war.
Just War Theory is flawed Just war theory has been used for hundreds of years as the guiding principal for entering into war. Just because Negative claims that Just War is flawed does not make it so. What is the alternative to just war? Either war that has no objective criteria and so is conducted at the whim of a government official, in which case no moral guidelines exist, or pacifism becomes the standard operational procedure in which case one allows the conquest of ones society and the deaths of innocents. Targeted killing produces collateral damage All war produces collateral damage. Targeted killing produces less innocent deaths. This is the moral approach to fighting a war. This is especially true because terrorists often hide in and among innocent civilians.
Debate Doctors 2012
14
NEGATIVE CASE 1: UTILITY

This case is about usefulness NOT utilitarianism. Utility examines the usefulness of a thing. It is the best value in this round because not only does it allow us to look at the usefulness or uselessness of an action, but it also allows us to examine whether the action is useful in accomplishing Affirmatives value. Since it acts as a test for Affirmatives value, it is the superior value in the debate. If it does not fit the usefulness test, it cannot meet Affirmative goals. The fact that targeted killing is against international law and that innocent people are almost always killed along with the targeted person is enough for any sane individual to realize that a policy that tells other nations that we are going to assassinate people we dont like in your country cannot be a useful policy. Instead of taking the role of international bully a country would be better off to work cooperatively with other countries to solve problems. This is important when Negative starts to tell us that certain countries harbor terrorists that threaten our safety. This argument helps our case because Affirmative then admits that it is the terrorists that are the problem not the country. And when they bring up the Bin Laden raid, you simply assert that that was not a foreign policy but rather a calculated risk that Pakistan would not be willing to go to war with the United States. The bottom line is that it is not a useful policy to declare war on the world.
Debate Doctors 2012
15
NEGATIVE CASE: UTILITY

I reject the proposition that: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. I offer the definition of Foreign Trade for your consideration: From the Cambridge Dictionary online 2012. Foreign Policy the official ways in which a government has decided to deal with other countries, in relation to trade, defence, etc., or a particular example of this The value I will uphold in this debate is Utility. [Merriam-Webster online dictionary 2011:] Utility is defined as: fitness for some purpose or worth to some end It is important to establish whether a foreign policy of targeted killing will be useful in achieving the goals that any country would want to achieve in the world. The criterion for the debate should be progress Progress is the key to foreign policy. Does a policy toward another nation that says we will kill anyone that we think is dangerous really a policy that will produ ce useful and productive relations between countries? The answer is no and I will demonstrate this in three contentions: CONTENTION 1: TARGETED KILLING IS AGAINST HAGUE REGULATIONS ilinskas, Justinas. (2008) TARGETED KILLING UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW. JURISPRUDENCIJA Mokslo darbai 2008 5(107); 8-18 At the beginning of the twentieth century, the proscription of treacherous killing was embodied in Article 23(b) of Hague Regulation [35]. It has been derived from this article, read in connection with Article 23 (c) of Hague Regulation, that law of war also prohibits combatants from targeting and killing enemy combatants who are no longer on the battlefield, but are resting at home or taking their family to the cinema [36, p. 8]. Hereby the contention, that lawful targeting in wartime has never required that the individual being targeted is actually engaged in combat and thus could be killed at any time and at any place whatsoever, is rejected [17, p. 627].
Debate Doctors 2012
16
CONTENTION 2: SELF-DEFENSE ALONE IS NOT A REASON FOR TARGETED KILLING

Guiora, A. N. (2009, Winter). Not "by all means necessary": a comparative framework for post9/11 approaches to counterterrorism. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 42(12), 273+. This rearticulation of expansive self-defense is insufficient on its own, however, because the decision to authorize the "hit" is not made in a vacuum. Implementing the four international law principles referenced above requires the commander to ascertain that the "hit" is essential to national security and therefore proportional to the risk the individual presents. Furthermore, the commander must determine that any alternatives, such as capturing and detaining the individual, are not operationally possible. The commander must also seek to minimize the collateral damage--harm to innocent civilians--that is all but inevitable in such attacks.
CONTENTION 3: KILLING INNOCENTS IS NEVER RIGHT

Savoy, P. (May 31, 2004). The moral case against the Iraq War: viewed in the light of our own ideals, the right to life is so fundamental that killing the innocent to advance any purpose, however worthy, is wrong. The Nation. , 278, 21. p.16. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: [Paul Savoy, a former assistant district attorney for New York County and past dean of the John F. Kennedy University School of Law in Pleasant Hill, California] Viewed in the light of our own moral ideals, as embodied in our constitutional tradition, the right to life is so fundamental that killing the innocent to advance the cause of freedom of electoral choice or any other purpose, however worthy, must be regarded as wrong. We denounce terrorists because when the freedom of self-determination they seek is weighed in the balance against the right to life of innocent people, it is the right to life that our collective conscience has decided should prevail.
A foreign policy that tells other countries that we are willing to kill anyone we think stands in our way cannot be useful. It turns the nation into a collective terrorist. It will not meet the criterion of progress because such a foreign policy essentially declares war on the world. A country cannot progress in this world if it is at war with the world. Thus the value of utility is not met and so Negative should win here. But look at the Affirmative case.
Debate Doctors 2012
17
ANSWERS TO POSSIBLE AFFIRMATIVE ATTACKS (attacks in red, answers in

black)
Affirmative value is superior Not in this debate. Utility provides us with a framework to use to decide if a particular course of action will work. If your foreign policy will not work, then you cannot meet your own value. Therefore, we have to hold Utility up as the superior value in this particular debate. Life is more important that Utility Not in this debate. Utility provides us with a framework to use to decide if a particular course of action will work. If your foreign policy will not work, then you cannot meet your own value. Therefore, we have to hold Utility up as the superior value in this particular debate because the preservation of life depends on the usefulness of the policy Utility and progress are circular. This is just a time suck. Progress is the way one assesses the usefulness of a policy. If the policy provides progress then it is useful and so meets the value. Utility should be the criterion NO. Utility is a value that one can determine ones life by. If one always takes the most useful path, one can always be assured of a successful policy. Progress is the criterion that allows us to judge usefulness. No bright line on this The bright line is that it is easy to demonstrate whether a policy has detrimental effects on foreign relations. Targeted killing certainly has detrimental effects since it kills innocent people and is illegal in the international arena. The bright is that the policy must foster positive relations with other countries. Promising to kill anyone we dont like is not a positive relation builder. Targeted killing is only used against terrorists in countries that will not cooperate First, that is not what the resolution says. And by definition foreign policy is a general policy toward foreign nations. Second, cooperation is a two-way street. Affirmative does not provide any room for negotiation in the resolution.
Debate Doctors 2012
18
Targeted killing takes out the leaders of the terrorists without military operations First, targeted killing is a military operation. Second, taking out the leader does not stop the fanatical groups from installing a new leader and it does not solve the root problems that has caused the terrorists to operate in the first place. At the end of the day, you have just killed one person and probably some innocent bystanders and done nothing to fix the problem.
Debate Doctors 2012
19
NEGATIVE CASE 2: COMMON GOOD

This case holds that only by developing good international relations can we create an environment where the good of all people is recognized. Killing one person does not stop the fanatics. Killing one leader simply means another leader steps up. Through international cooperation and good relations can the root causes of unhappiness be addressed so that terrorists have no support. Without local support, the terrorists cannot continue. Do not forget that the resolution claims that targeted killing is a moral action. But announcing to the world that we will kill anyone we dont like anywhere we like is at its most basic a declaration of war on the world without a just cause for such declaration. The resolution is not about isolated instances like the Bin Laden raid. It calls for an announce policy toward the other nations of the world. There is no moral reason to declare war on the world.
Debate Doctors 2012
20
NEGTIVE CASE: COMMON GOOD

I reject the proposition that: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. I offer the definition of Foreign Trade for your consideration: From the Cambridge Dictionary online 2012. Foreign Policy the official ways in which a government has decided to deal with other countries, in relation to trade, defence, etc., or a particular example of this
The value I will uphold is Common Good By common I mean:

[Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.]
of or relating to a community at large : work for the common good; belonging to or shared by two or more individuals or things or by all members of a group. The criterion for judging this debate is The Global Society If policy allows for the building of relations between nations so that a more positive relationship exists between nations, the global society is strengthened. A healthy global society serves as a bright line for the common good since positive relations promotes the well-being of all people. CONTENTION 1: THE NEED TO CONSTRAIN CONFLICT IS WIDELY RECOGNIZED Alexandra, A. (Oct 2003). Political pacifism. Social Theory and Practice. , 29, 4. p.589(18). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Recognition of the need to constrain the impact of conflict on the political viability of states contributed to the creation of an international (first European, and later global) society of states, in which sovereignty implied not simply rights, but also duties to fellow members. (14) By the later part of the eighteenth century, wars were becoming less frequent, even though their destructiveness when they did occur continued to grow. CONTENTION 2: THE MILITARY OPTION IS NOT EFFECTIVE Alexandra, A. (Oct 2003). Political pacifism. Social Theory and Practice. , 29, 4. p.589(18). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale:
Debate Doctors 2012
21
There is ample historical evidence, for example, of the ways in which measures supposed to increase military security--development of armaments, strengthening of border posts, and so on-can undermine trust between states, and actually make conflict more, not less, likely, as well as the tendency for low-level military conflicts to escalate. The unilateral adoption of a pacifist stance by one nation removes these potential provocations for invasion. We also have a good deal of evidence for the effectiveness of non-military resistance to armed invasion. (32) That evidence itself must have some deterrent force for those who contemplate military occupation of a state that has institutionalized pacifist resistance. In the light of these considerations, it is at least doubtful that we can always be sure that military means are clearly more effective than pacifist ones. CONTENTION 3: IF WAR IS MORAL WHY DOES IT MAKE SO MANY PEOPLE SAD? Hauerwas, S., & Sider, J. A. (Dec 2002). Pacifism redux. (Correspondence). First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life. , p.2(3). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Finally, we wonder what Prof. Cole can possibly mean when he says that it is "a sad fact that Christians are always going to have to use violence" and yet also maintain that when just warriors use force justly, "such acts bear no stain of evil." Why, on Aquinas' or Calvin's grounds, would it be appropriate to feel sorrow for an action that is justified? When Aquinas, for instance, asks "Whether sorrow is compatible with moral virtue?" he repeats Aristotle, saying, "To have controlled sorrow for what we should feel sorry about is a mark of virtue" (Summa Theologiae, I-II, 59, 3). In this way, Aquinas is careful to distinguish appropriate objects of sorrow from inappropriate ones, such that he may say that the virtuous person may feel sadness for another's sin. But he does not say that a Christian should feel sorry about an act of justice. Admittedly, in the medieval world penance was required from those returning from a just war, but surely such a requirement was because the Church continued to have some sense that war is incompatible with the gospel. Prof. Cole does not think war is incompatible with the gospel. So why is he sad? Adopting a policy toward other nat ions that says we will kill anyone we dont like in your country is basically a declaration of war on that country. To adopt this view as a nations foreign policy to the world is to declare war on the world. This action fails to meet the requirement of a global society and cannot uphold the common good. Negative wins here but lets look at the Affirmative case.
Debate Doctors 2012
22
ANSWERS TO POSSIBLE AFFIRMATIVE ATTACKS (attacks in red, answers in

black)
Affirmative value is superior Not in this debate. Even you want to advance life, common good subsumes this by providing that good thing to all people. Affirmatives resolution essentially declares war on the world and puts the nation that upholds such a policy in the role of bully and assassin. A value that upholds that is not moral no matter what definition you use for moral.
Targeted killing is only used against terrorists in countries that will not cooperate First, that is not what the resolution says. And by definition foreign policy is a general policy toward foreign nations. Second, cooperation is a two-way street. Affirmative does not provide any room for negotiation in the resolution. Targeted killing takes out the leaders of the terrorists without military operations First, targeted killing is a military operation. Second, taking out the leader does not stop the fanatical groups from installing a new leader and it does not solve the root problems that has caused the terrorists to operate in the first place. At the end of the day, you have just killed one person and probably some innocent bystanders and done nothing to fix the problem. Contention 2 talks about the difference between military and pacifist options Exactly. Relations between nations are always strengthened by negotiation not war. If an individual in a particular country is a danger to another country, cooperation between the two nations is preferable to conducting an act of war on the other country. Contention 3 talks about sad people Christianity, this has nothing to do with Affirmative or the resolution The card makes the point that even if you look at Aquinas by the way is most often cited in just war theory or any other advocate of a moral cause of war, the question should be answered. If it is so moral, why does it make people so sad? Targeted killing is never so precise that only one person is killed. Innocents are always killed also. And when it is a policy we announce to every nation in the world it essentially puts us at war with the world. There is no justification for such a war Debate Doctors 2012 23 Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy
We have to be able to defend ourselves. We can and we do. There has been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. That is because the government is able to protect us without telling the rest of the nations of the world that we will kill anyone that gets in our way.
Debate Doctors 2012
24
AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE
Debate Doctors 2012
25
TARGETED KILLING IS MORAL

Cullen, Peter M., [2008] The Role of Targeted Killing in the Campaign against Terror. Joint Force Quarterly JFQ / issue 48, 1st quarter 2008 This article examines the legality, morality, and potential efficacy of a U.S. policy of targeted killing in its campaign against transnational terror.4 The conclusion is that, in spite of the genuine controversy surrounding this subject, a carefully circumscribed policy of targeted killing can be a legal, moral, and effective tool in a counterterror campaign. Cullen, Peter M., [2008] The Role of Targeted Killing in the Campaign against Terror. Joint Force Quarterly JFQ / issue 48, 1st quarter 2008 Provided that targeted killing operations comply with the law of war, one can make a convincing argument that they are consistent with the Just War tradition. By their very nature, they seek to target those terrorists who are intent on killing, maiming, and injuring innocent civilians.
Debate Doctors 2012
26
TARGETED KILLING IS LEGAL
Guiora, A. N. (2009, Winter). Not "by all means necessary": a comparative framework for post9/11 approaches to counterterrorism. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 42(12), 273+. Targeted killings are indeed legal, trader certain conditions. The decision to use targeted killing of terrorists is based on an expansive articulation of the concept of pre-emptive self-defense, intelligence information, and an analysis regarding policy effectiveness. According to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, a nation state can respond to an armed attack. Targeted killing, however, is somewhat different because the state acts before the attack occurs. In addition to self-defense principles, the four critical principles of international law--alternatives, military necessity, proportionality, and collateral damage--are critical to the decision-maker's analysis.
Debate Doctors 2012
27
TARGETED KILLING IS SELF DEFENSE

Gary Solis [2007] TARGETED KILLING AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT Naval War CoUege Review, Spring 2007, Vol. 60, No. The justification for targeted killing rests in the assertion of self-defense. Israel argues that "it is the prime duty of a democratic state to effectively defend its citizens against any danger posed to their lives and well-being by acts or activities of terror."' In the United States, the preamble of the Constitution includes the words, "in order to . . . provide for the common defense." A prominent Israeli scholar argues, "It may be contended that the right of self-defence is inherent not in jus naturale, but in the sovereignty of States."" In 2004, the United States initiated an aggressive military-based strategy against suspected terrorists, no longer taking a law enforcement approach to their capture and trial.^ Guiora, A. N. (2009, Winter). Not "by all means necessary": a comparative framework for post9/11 approaches to counterterrorism. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 42(12), 273+. Israel instituted its targeted killing policy in large part in response to Palestinian suicide-bombing attacks. But it's not just the bombers themselves that are a threat. Four actors--the bomber, the planner, the driver/logistics person, and the financier--form the basis of the suicide bombing infrastructure. Determining which of the four is a legitimate target, and when, is the critical question decision-makers face. As not all four are legitimate targets at all times, the commander is limited against whom he can act; that reality reflects the limits of self-defense.
Debate Doctors 2012
28
TERRORIST THREATS JUSTIFY TARGETED KILLING

Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: What entitles the U.S. to define its campaign against Al Qaeda as war, with the loosening of various moral prohibitions implied by such a definition, rather than as a police enforcement action aimed at bringing a group of criminals to justice? The answer here--as with conventional war--lies in: (a) the gravity of the threat posed by Al Qaeda and (b) the impracticality of coping with this threat by conventional law-enforcing institutions and methods. The threat posed by Al Qaeda to the U.S. is enormous. It is not only a threat to the lives of thousands of people, Americans and others, but also the threat of the terrorizing results of such mass killing on the entire country in terms of the economy and the quality of day-to-day life. A war of terror does not mean that all citizens are under actual attack all the time, but that such attacks are frequent enough and devastating enough to make life unbearable.
Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: If we are to continue to adhere to the fundamental idea of just war theory, namely, that wars are fought between combatants only and should avoid targeting non-combatants, we must conclude that in wars against terror, too, the combatants of the terrorized country may direct their weapons only at members and activists in the terror organizations against which they are fighting.
Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Targeted killing, then, emerges as the most natural manifestation of jus in bello in wars on terror, for under jus in bello, even if a war is unjust, it should be directed (to as great an extent as possible) only at combatants. This implies that wars against terror should be directed (to as great an extent as possible) only at terrorists. However, unlike enemy soldiers in conventional wars, terrorists are embedded amidst the civilian population and can be hit only (or mainly) in their homes, cars, and so forth. Thus, targeted killing is the most natural application of the principles of jus in bello in wars against terror.
Debate Doctors 2012
29
TARGETED KILLING SAVES LIVES

Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: To kill by name is to kill somebody simply because he is who he is, regardless of any contingent features he possesses or actions he has committed. This type of killing is, indeed, deeply problematic from a moral point of view. But targeting soldiers in war is not of this kind. It is connected to the special role the targets play in the war or, more precisely, to the special threat they pose to the other side. In other words, even if soldiers are only agents of some collective, some agents might be more important than others in carrying out the policy or ideology of that collective. Targeting such agents rather than others expresses no "personal" grievance against them, but simply recognition of their special excellence in executing their role as agents.
Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: In line with this view, it seems to me that far from being "morally abhorrent," as Gross seems to believe, targeted killing expresses the appropriate respect for human life during wartime. With targeted killings, human beings are killed not simply because they are "the enemy," but because they bear special responsibility or play a special role in the enemy's aggression. This is particularly true in wars against terrorism, where those targeted are usually personally responsible for atrocities committed against the lives of innocent civilians.
Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: First, in the war against terror, just as in the war against the mafia, what counts are the long-term results, not the immediate ones. In the short run, acts of revenge might follow the killing of terrorists, but in the long run, there is good reason to believe that such killings will weaken the terror organizations, generate demoralization among their members, force them to restrict their movements, and so on. 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.
Debate Doctors 2012
30
TARGETED KILLING NO LESS MORAL THAN CONVENTIONAL WAR

Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Regarding the effectiveness of targeted killing in wars against terror, here, too, we can draw an analogy to conventional wars. Fighting armies do their best to choose effective measures, i.e., measures that will contribute to the defeat of their enemy. But very rarely will they be criticized, prospectively or retrospectively, on the grounds that ineffective actions caused the unnecessary deaths of enemy soldiers. Applied to targeted killing, this means that its effectiveness should concern us morally no more than the effectiveness of methods used or actions taken in conventional wars. At any rate, in most cases and in the long run, there is no convincing evidence that targeted killing is an ineffective means in fighting terror.
Debate Doctors 2012
31
LOCATION DOES NOT PROTECT A TERRORIST

Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: A change in one's location (from office to home or from headquarters to a hotel) cannot provide moral immunity from attack to a person who might otherwise be killed in self-defense, assuming--I emphasize again--that the permission to kill him does not rest on his posing an immediate threat.
Debate Doctors 2012
32
KILLING MORALLY INNOCENT SOLDIERS CAN BE MORAL

Overland, G. (Dec 2006). Killing Soldiers. Ethics & International Affairs. , 20, 4. p.455(21). Retrieved August 18, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: A riddle in the ethics of war concerns whether lethal defensive force may be justifiably used against aggressing soldiers who are morally innocent. In this essay I argue that although there might be reasons for excusing soldiers as individuals, one may be justified in using defensive force against them provided that they have initiated threatening behavior and that our interpretation of that behavior as threatening is reasonable.
Debate Doctors 2012
33
KILLING CIVILIANS IS SOMETIMES NECESSARY AND MORAL

Bacevich, A J (Spring 2007). The war on terror properly understood.(FORUM: ON TERRORISM) World Policy Journal, 24, 1.p.59(2). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: [Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University, and the author, most recently, of The New American Militarism.] A glance at the historical record demonstrates that this dictum applies to the United States no less than to other great powers. When we have found it expedient to kill civilians, we have done so without suffering notable qualms of conscience. The strategic bombing campaigns directed against Germany and Japan during World War II offer a prime example. When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld passed the word after 9/11 to "take the gloves off," he was adverting to this tradition of subordinating moral considerations to the ostensible imperatives of "military necessity." ilinskas, Justinas. (2008) TARGETED KILLING UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW. JURISPRUDENCIJA Mokslo darbai 2008 5(107); 8-18 From the moment a civilian is taking direct part in hostilities, he forfeits immunity from attack. He becomes a lawful target for the duration of his engagement in the hostilities [39, p. 18 23].
Debate Doctors 2012
34
WAR CAN BE MORAL

Debate Doctors 2012
35
SOLDIERS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MORALITY OF THE WAR
Ceulemans, C. (Winter 2007). The moral equality of combatants. (Essay). Parameters. , 37, 4. p.99(11). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via GaleCarl [Ceulemans holds a Ph.D. in political science from the Vrije Universiteit in Brussels. He teaches in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and holds a Chair of Philosophy at the Royal Military Academy. ] If the military were permitted to question the legitimacy of a duly executed decision to go to war, it would be engaged in an activity for which it has no authority. Instead of a purely advisory function, the military would in this case acquire a final say on the matter of the use of military force. Needless to say this is not a legitimate role for the military. Overland, G. (Dec 2006). Killing Soldiers. Ethics & International Affairs. , 20, 4. p.455(21). Retrieved August 18, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: In addition to being young, uneducated, and swayed by their superiors and public authorities, soldiers fight out of loyalty to their country and out of lawful subservience to it. (18) In certain situations they may be fighting under duress. (19) The latter is particularly likely for conscripted soldiers who fight for a tyrannical regime, as was the case for many soldiers in the two latest Iraqi wars. Of course, one could maintain that no unjust combatant is ever fully innocent; every combatant on an unjust side can probably be faulted in some way. After all, going to war is a serious matter, and we should expect those who choose to fight in a particular war to take every possible measure to determine the justice of its cause. Notwithstanding this, I contend that at least some of the soldiers fighting an unjust war might at least sometimes be morally excused for their activities. (20) Overland, G. (Dec 2006). Killing Soldiers. Ethics & International Affairs. , 20, 4. p.455(21). Retrieved August 18, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Soldiers often fail to take steps to ensure that they take part only in just wars. It may therefore simply be a matter of luck, unrelated to the quality of their moral characters, that some soldiers end up fighting on the unjust side and others on the just side of wars. Thus, even if soldiers should not be fully excused for being unjust aggressors, one can recognize that they are no more to blame than those with whom they fight.
Debate Doctors 2012
36
Overland, G. (Dec 2006). Killing Soldiers. Ethics & International Affairs. , 20, 4. p.455(21). Retrieved August 18, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Assuming that it is permissible to kill the culpable to save the innocent, only innocent people need to participate in the contractual position. I shall therefore investigate the reasons innocent people have for accepting a decision procedure that gives priority to the defending party. Clearly, their reasons would depend on their interests. It is plausible to assume, though, that a main interest of the contracting parties would be to reduce their risk of dying. Reasons for accepting rules for regulating actions of self- and other-defense would therefore be to avoid deaths of the innocent while expending the lives of the culpable.
Debate Doctors 2012
37
ANY SOLDIER IS A TARGET IN WAR

Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Thus: (1) states can go to war for the sake of formal sovereignty with no need to show that, beyond that formal sovereignty, any vital interests are in clear and imminent danger, and (2) once they actually do wage war, they can kill any enemy soldier, regardless of the personal danger posed by or responsibility of those being killed. Following McMahan, I shall call this view the "Orthodox View." (3)
Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: To complete the analogy between conventional wars and wars against terror, we can assume that just as all soldiers (but only soldiers) are legitimate targets in the former, regardless of their individual roles, the threat they pose as individuals, or their personal responsibility in the waging or conducting of the war, so in the latter all members of the relevant terror organizations are legitimate targets and can be killed by the terrorized side on the basis of the latter's right to selfdefense. Moreover, members of terrorist organizations bear far greater moral responsibility for their actions than soldiers in conventional wars, because many of the latter are conscripts forced to participate in the war, whereas joining a terror organization is usually a more voluntary act.
Gary Solis [2007] TARGETED KILLING AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT Naval War CoUege Review, Spring 2007, Vol. 60, No. Nor was Admiral Yamamoto's death a targeted killing. Like the Blueland sniper's victim, Yamamoto was a lawful combatant in an international armed confiict, killed by opposing lawful combatants. "There is nothing treacherous in singling out an individual enemy combatant (usually, a senior officer) as a target for a lethal attack conducted by combatants distinguishing themselves as such ... even in an air strike." The fact that Yamamoto was targeted away from the front lines is immaterial. Combatants may be targeted wherever found, armed or unarmed, awake or asleep, on a front line or a mile or a hundred miles behind the lines, "whether in the zone of hostilities, occupied territory, or elsewhere."'" Combatants can withdraw from hostilities only by retiring and becoming civilians, by becoming hors de combat, or by laying down their arms." The shooting down of Admiral Yamamoto was not a targeted killing.
Debate Doctors 2012
38
Gary Solis [2007] TARGETED KILLING AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT Naval War CoUege Review, Spring 2007, Vol. 60, No. On 3 November 2002, over the desert near Sanaa, Yemen, a Central Intelligence Agency controlled Predator drone aircraft tracked an SUV containing six men. One of the six, Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, was known to be a senior al-Qa'ida lieutenant suspected of having played a major role in the 2000 bombing of the destroyer USS Cole. He "was on a list of 'high-value' targets whose elimination, by capture or death, had been called for by President Bush." The United States and Yemen had tracked al-Harethi's movements for months. Now, away from any inhabited area, the Predator fired a Hellfire missile at the vehicle. The six occupants, including al-Harethi, were killed.'^ That was a targeted killing. In today's new age of nonstate actors engaging in transnational terrorist violence, targeting parameters must change. Laws of armed conflict agreed upon in another era should be interpreted to recognize the new reality. While some will disagree, the killing of al-Harethi should be considered as being in accord with the law
Debate Doctors 2012
39
WAR CAN BE MORAL

Debate Doctors 2012
40

Ceulemans, C. (Winter 2007). The moral equality of combatants. (Essay). Parameters. , 37, 4. p.99(11). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via GaleCarl [Ceulemans holds a Ph.D. in political science from the Vrije Universiteit in Brussels. He teaches in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and holds a Chair of Philosophy at the Royal Military Academy. ] If the military were permitted to question the legitimacy of a duly executed decision to go to war, it would be engaged in an activity for which it has no authority. Instead of a purely advisory function, the military would in this case acquire a final say on the matter of the use of military force. Needless to say this is not a legitimate role for the military. Overland, G. (Dec 2006). Killing Soldiers. Ethics & International Affairs. , 20, 4. p.455(21). Retrieved August 18, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: In addition to being young, uneducated, and swayed by their superiors and public authorities, soldiers fight out of loyalty to their country and out of lawful subservience to it. (18) In certain situations they may be fighting under duress. (19) The latter is particularly likely for conscripted soldiers who fight for a tyrannical regime, as was the case for many soldiers in the two latest Iraqi wars. Of course, one could maintain that no unjust combatant is ever fully innocent; every combatant on an unjust side can probably be faulted in some way. After all, going to war is a serious matter, and we should expect those who choose to fight in a particular war to take every possible measure to determine the justice of its cause. Notwithstanding this, I contend that at least some of the soldiers fighting an unjust war might at least sometimes be morally excused for their activities. (20) Overland, G. (Dec 2006). Killing Soldiers. Ethics & International Affairs. , 20, 4. p.455(21). Retrieved August 18, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Soldiers often fail to take steps to ensure that they take part only in just wars. It may therefore simply be a matter of luck, unrelated to the quality of their moral characters, that some soldiers end up fighting on the unjust side and others on the just side of wars. Thus, even if soldiers should not be fully excused for being unjust aggressors, one can recognize that they are no more to blame than those with whom they fight.
Debate Doctors 2012
41
Overland, G. (Dec 2006). Killing Soldiers. Ethics & International Affairs. , 20, 4. p.455(21). Retrieved August 18, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Assuming that it is permissible to kill the culpable to save the innocent, only innocent people need to participate in the contractual position. I shall therefore investigate the reasons innocent people have for accepting a decision procedure that gives priority to the defending party. Clearly, their reasons would depend on their interests. It is plausible to assume, though, that a main interest of the contracting parties would be to reduce their risk of dying. Reasons for accepting rules for regulating actions of self- and other-defense would therefore be to avoid deaths of the innocent while expending the lives of the culpable.
Debate Doctors 2012
42

Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Thus: (1) states can go to war for the sake of formal sovereignty with no need to show that, beyond that formal sovereignty, any vital interests are in clear and imminent danger, and (2) once they actually do wage war, they can kill any enemy soldier, regardless of the personal danger posed by or responsibility of those being killed. Following McMahan, I shall call this view the "Orthodox View." (3)
Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: To complete the analogy between conventional wars and wars against terror, we can assume that just as all soldiers (but only soldiers) are legitimate targets in the former, regardless of their individual roles, the threat they pose as individuals, or their personal responsibility in the waging or conducting of the war, so in the latter all members of the relevant terror organizations are legitimate targets and can be killed by the terrorized side on the basis of the latter's right to selfdefense. Moreover, members of terrorist organizations bear far greater moral responsibility for their actions than soldiers in conventional wars, because many of the latter are conscripts forced to participate in the war, whereas joining a terror organization is usually a more voluntary act.
Gary Solis [2007] TARGETED KILLING AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT Naval War CoUege Review, Spring 2007, Vol. 60, No. Nor was Admiral Yamamoto's death a targeted killing. Like the Blueland sniper's victim, Yamamoto was a lawful combatant in an international armed confiict, killed by opposing lawful combatants. "There is nothing treacherous in singling out an individual enemy combatant (usually, a senior officer) as a target for a lethal attack conducted by combatants distinguishing themselves as such ... even in an air strike." The fact that Yamamoto was targeted away from the front lines is immaterial. Combatants may be targeted wherever found, armed or unarmed, awake or asleep, on a front line or a mile or a hundred miles behind the lines, "whether in the zone of hostilities, occupied territory, or elsewhere."'" Combatants can withdraw from hostilities only by retiring and becoming civilians, by becoming hors de combat, or by laying down their arms." The shooting down of Admiral Yamamoto was not a targeted killing.
Debate Doctors 2012
43

Gary Solis [2007] TARGETED KILLING AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT Naval War CoUege Review, Spring 2007, Vol. 60, No. On 3 November 2002, over the desert near Sanaa, Yemen, a Central Intelligence Agency controlled Predator drone aircraft tracked an SUV containing six men. One of the six, Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, was known to be a senior al-Qa'ida lieutenant suspected of having played a major role in the 2000 bombing of the destroyer USS Cole. He "was on a list of 'high-value' targets whose elimination, by capture or death, had been called for by President Bush." The United States and Yemen had tracked al-Harethi's movements for months. Now, away from any inhabited area, the Predator fired a Hellfire missile at the vehicle. The six occupants, including al-Harethi, were killed.'^ That was a targeted killing. In today's new age of nonstate actors engaging in transnational terrorist violence, targeting parameters must change. Laws of armed conflict agreed upon in another era should be interpreted to recognize the new reality. While some will disagree, the killing of al-Harethi should be considered as being in accord with the law of armed conflict.
Debate Doctors 2012
44
NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
Debate Doctors 2012
45
TARGETED KILLING IS IMMORAL

Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: The purpose of this paper is to provide a philosophical defense for targeted killings in the wars against terror. The paper argues that if one accepts the moral legitimacy of the large-scale killing of combatants in conventional (what are soon to be called "old-fashioned") wars, one cannot object--on moral grounds--to the targeted killing of terrorists in wars against terror. If one rejects this legitimacy, one must object to all killing in war, targeted and non-targeted alike, and thus not support the view, which is criticized here, that targeted killings are particularly disturbing from a moral point of view.
Debate Doctors 2012
46
THE TRUE MOTIVE FOR TARGETED KILLING IS RETRIBUTION NOT SAVING LIVES
Statman, D. (Jan 2004). Targeted killing. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. , 5, 1. p.NA. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: In a recent article on targeted killing, Steven David argues that the best moral justification for Israel's policy of targeted killing is retribution. (12) The argument is a simple and straightforward one: Those people targeted committed terrible crimes. Evildoers deserve to suffer in response and in a way suited to their crimes. Palestinian terrorists with blood on their hands therefore deserve death, the ultimate punishment for their crimes. Hence, the targeted killing of these terrorists is justified.
Debate Doctors 2012
47
KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IS ALWAYS WRONG

Bacevich, A J (Spring 2007). The war on terror properly understood.(FORUM: ON TERRORISM) World Policy Journal, 24, 1.p.59(2). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: [Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University, and the author, most recently, of The New American Militarism.] The Western moral tradition prohibits the intentional killing of non-combatants. This prohibition, an integral element of the Christian theory of just war, is explicit and absolute. Although President George W. Bush's credentials as a moral philosopher may appear sketchy, he got it exactly right when he declared in his June 2002 speech at West Point that "Targeting innocent civilians for murder is always and everywhere wrong."
Savoy, P. (May 31, 2004). The moral case against the Iraq War: viewed in the light of our own ideals, the right to life is so fundamental that killing the innocent to advance any purpose, however worthy, is wrong. The Nation. , 278, 21. p.16. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: [Paul Savoy, a former assistant district attorney for New York County and past dean of the John F. Kennedy University School of Law in Pleasant Hill, California] What is overlooked by those who believe the benefits of the war outweigh the costs is that killing even one innocent person to benefit others violates the most basic human right--the right to life. The right to life is one of those unalienable rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. "Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual," William Blackstone wrote in his eighteenth-century Commentaries on the Laws of England, one of the leading sources of American civil liberties. What Blackstone meant when he characterized the right to life as a God-given right is that it is beyond the power of any mere government to abrogate or repeal. Innocent people may not be killed or injured by the state, even when a majority believes it serves the greater good.
Savoy, P. (May 31, 2004). The moral case against the Iraq War: viewed in the light of our own ideals, the right to life is so fundamental that killing the innocent to advance any purpose, however worthy, is wrong. The Nation. , 278, 21. p.16. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: [Paul Savoy, a former assistant district attorney for New York County and past dean of the John F. Kennedy University School of Law in Pleasant Hill, California] In a prelude to the "Grand Inquisitor" scene in The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan asks his faithbased brother Alyosha a question we all need to ask ourselves about the children who were killed or injured in the Iraq war: "Let's assume that you were called upon to build the edifice of human destiny so that men would finally be happy and would find peace and tranquillity. If you knew that, in order to attain this, you would have to torture just one single creature, let's say the little girl who beat her chest so desperately in the outhouse, and that on her unavenged tears you could build that edifice, would you agree to do it?" Debate Doctors 2012 48 Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

Savoy, P. (May 31, 2004). The moral case against the Iraq War: viewed in the light of our own ideals, the right to life is so fundamental that killing the innocent to advance any purpose, however worthy, is wrong. The Nation. , 278, 21. p.16. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: [Paul Savoy, a former assistant district attorney for New York County and past dean of the John F. Kennedy University School of Law in Pleasant Hill, California] Even more horrifying than the torture of Iraqi prisoners by their American captors has been the unnecessary suffering and death inflicted on the Iraqi people by the war itself. One of those children on whose unavenged tears the edifice of freedom has been built in Iraq was 12-year-old Ali Ismael Abbas, who was so badly burned in a US missile attack on Baghdad that his entire torso was black, his arms so mutilated that, as New Yorker correspondent Jon Lee Anderson described the hospital scene, they "looked like something that might be found in a barbecue pit." His family, which included his pregnant mother, his father and his six brothers and sisters, were all killed by the blast. Some of their bodies were so unrecognizable that all Anderson could see in morgue photographs was a collection of charred body parts and some red flesh Savoy, P. (May 31, 2004). The moral case against the Iraq War: viewed in the light of our own ideals, the right to life is so fundamental that killing the innocent to advance any purpose, however worthy, is wrong. The Nation. , 278, 21. p.16. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: [Paul Savoy, a former assistant district attorney for New York County and past dean of the John F. Kennedy University School of Law in Pleasant Hill, California] Viewed in the light of our own moral ideals, as embodied in our constitutional tradition, the right to life is so fundamental that killing the innocent to advance the cause of freedom of electoral choice or any other purpose, however worthy, must be regarded as wrong. We denounce terrorists because when the freedom of self-determination they seek is weighed in the balance against the right to life of innocent people, it is the right to life that our collective conscience has decided should prevail.
Business Recorder 18 Dec. 2011"Four killed in separate incidents." At least four persons including a minor girl were fallen prey to targeted killing spree in separate incidents at various parts of the metropolis here on Saturday. According to details, a 10-year old girl was shot dead by her tuition fellow in the remits of Sir Syed police station.
Debate Doctors 2012
49

Savoy, P. (May 31, 2004). The moral case against the Iraq War: viewed in the light of our own ideals, the right to life is so fundamental that killing the innocent to advance any purpose, however worthy, is wrong. The Nation. , 278, 21. p.16. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: [Paul Savoy, a former assistant district attorney for New York County and past dean of the John F. Kennedy University School of Law in Pleasant Hill, California] Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned before the war that, despite the military's best efforts to prevent civilian casualties, "people are going to die." Given this knowledge aforethought, the Administration cannot continue to pretend that the civilian deaths in Iraq were accidental. The mother killed in a Baghdad bomb blast holding her baby so tightly they could not be pried apart, and the thousands of other innocent Iraqis killed in the war, were the victims of intentional homicide, however accidental or acceptable their deaths may have appeared on Fox News or CNN.
Debate Doctors 2012
50
TARGETED KILLING IS AGAINST HAGUE REGULATIONS

ilinskas, Justinas. (2008) TARGETED KILLING UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW. JURISPRUDENCIJA Mokslo darbai 2008 5(107); 8-18 At the beginning of the twentieth century, the proscription of treacherous killing was embodied in Article 23(b) of Hague Regulation [35]. It has been derived from this article, read in connection with Article 23 (c) of Hague Regulation, that law of war also prohibits combatants from targeting and killing enemy combatants who are no longer on the battlefield, but are resting at home or taking their family to the cinema [36, p. 8]. Hereby the contention, that lawful targeting in wartime has never required that the individual being targeted is actually engaged in combat and thus could be killed at any time and at any place whatsoever, is rejected [17, p. 627]. ilinskas, Justinas. (2008) TARGETED KILLING UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW. JURISPRUDENCIJA Mokslo darbai 2008 5(107); 8-18 In our view an enemy combatant who is not contributing to enemy military action, when he or she is spending time with his or her family and in those circumstances his or her killing does not generate a direct military advantage. Such a killing might not amount to perfidy as such, but dishonour in conduct is also in defiance with the general principles of humanity and humanitarian law.
Debate Doctors 2012
51
SELF-DEFENSE ALONE IS NOT A REASON FOR TARGETED KILLING

Guiora, A. N. (2009, Winter). Not "by all means necessary": a comparative framework for post9/11 approaches to counterterrorism. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 42(12), 273+. This rearticulation of expansive self-defense is insufficient on its own, however, because the decision to authorize the "hit" is not made in a vacuum. Implementing the four international law principles referenced above requires the commander to ascertain that the "hit" is essential to national security and therefore proportional to the risk the individual presents. Furthermore, the commander must determine that any alternatives, such as capturing and detaining the individual, are not operationally possible. The commander must also seek to minimize the collateral damage--harm to innocent civilians--that is all but inevitable in such attacks.
Debate Doctors 2012
52
TARGETED KILLING KILLS INNOCENTS AND ESCALATES TENSIONS

Xinhua News Agency (2001, August 27). Israeli Opposition Leader Calls Killing of PFLP leader "Dangerous Escalation". p. 1008239h5110. Israeli opposition leader Yossi Sarid on Monday criticized the Israel army's targeted killing of a leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) as an escalation of the situation. PFLP General Secretary Mustafa Zabri, known as Abu Ali Mustafa, was killed Monday morning in an Israeli army missile strike on his office in the West Bank town of Ramallah. Sarid from the left-wing Meretz Party said that "the assasination of a political activist is a dangerous escalation of the situation." "There was no great intelligence operation there. He was not hiding but was sitting in his office. I would hope that we will not start killing other political leaders in their offices," said Sarid. Xinhua News Agency (2001, August 27). Israeli Opposition Leader Calls Killing of PFLP leader "Dangerous Escalation". p. 1008239h5110. More than 50 Palestinians have been killed in pinpointed Israeli attacks in the 11 months of bloody conflict between the two sides, most of them militants suspected of be involved in attacks on Israelis. However, some of the victims have been bystanders, including two children.
Debate Doctors 2012
53
THE NEED TO CONSTRAIN CONFLICT IS WIDELY RECOGNIZED

Alexandra, A. (Oct 2003). Political pacifism. Social Theory and Practice. , 29, 4. p.589(18). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Recognition of the need to constrain the impact of conflict on the political viability of states contributed to the creation of an international (first European, and later global) society of states, in which sovereignty implied not simply rights, but also duties to fellow members. (14) By the later part of the eighteenth century, wars were becoming less frequent, even though their destructiveness when they did occur continued to grow.
Debate Doctors 2012
54
WAR IS A POLITICAL TOOL

Alexandra, A. (Oct 2003). Political pacifism. Social Theory and Practice. , 29, 4. p.589(18). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Where pacifism and political orthodoxy have diverged is in their attitudes to the institutionalization of violence as an integral part of interstate relations. The orthodox response to problems of inter-state conflict has been to develop and further regulate the institution of war. Certain kinds of institutionalized actors--armies, and ultimately states--are recognized as legitimate holders of military force, and the conditions under which such force may be wielded, as well as the forms and limits of its use, are specified in international law and treaties. War is now defined and understood in purely political terms, and (roughly speaking) is seen as legitimate only to the extent to which it is at the service of valid political goals; in particular (following the gradual delegitimization of the concept of "offensive wars") as a means to the preservation or restoration of the status quo in international relations. (18) To this extent war is a conservative institution, (19) at least in its aims, though in its effects, of course, it is often radically transformative.
Debate Doctors 2012
55
PACIFISM SEEKS TO DISMANTLE THE NEED FOR WAR

Alexandra, A. (Oct 2003). Political pacifism. Social Theory and Practice. , 29, 4. p.589(18). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Just as it would be a mistake to identify a social institution such as the market with the occasions on which people trade with each other rather than with the whole system of production, distribution, advertisement, and so on of commodities that makes such trades possible, so war as a political institution consists not simply of episodes of armed conflict between states and the rules and norms governing such conflicts, but also the whole complex of activities and organization that lead up to and make possible such episodes. (20) It is the institution of war in this comprehensive sense to which the pacifist is opposed: it follows that the peace that the pacifist desires is not simply the absence of fighting, but rather the dissolution of the institution of war. (21)
Debate Doctors 2012
56
THE MILITARY OPTION IS NOT EFFECTIVE

Alexandra, A. (Oct 2003). Political pacifism. Social Theory and Practice. , 29, 4. p.589(18). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: There is ample historical evidence, for example, of the ways in which measures supposed to increase military security--development of armaments, strengthening of border posts, and so on-can undermine trust between states, and actually make conflict more, not less, likely, as well as the tendency for low-level military conflicts to escalate. The unilateral adoption of a pacifist stance by one nation removes these potential provocations for invasion. We also have a good deal of evidence for the effectiveness of non-military resistance to armed invasion. (32) That evidence itself must have some deterrent force for those who contemplate military occupation of a state that has institutionalized pacifist resistance. In the light of these considerations, it is at least doubtful that we can always be sure that military means are clearly more effective than pacifist ones. Alexandra, A. (Oct 2003). Political pacifism. Social Theory and Practice. , 29, 4. p.589(18). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: On either model there are very considerable costs associated with the present system. Even when they are not actually involved in a war, the financial costs of supporting military institutions are enormous. Once these institutions actually engage in war, death and suffering occur, often on a vast scale. Undoubtedly, this is the greatest harm associated with the present system. But there are others. War frequently leads to destruction of economic resources and important cultural artifacts, as well as wide-spread pollution. Those who participate in war are often psychologically disturbed for the rest of their lives. This is bad for them, but also for those close to them and indeed for their society as a whole. Alexandra, A. (Oct 2003). Political pacifism. Social Theory and Practice. , 29, 4. p.589(18). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Furthermore, the costs associated with the present system continue to grow. (33) For centuries the financial costs of the preparation and waging of war have increased, as has the devastation caused by wars. This is not accidental, but rather a seemingly inevitable result of the present system. As one armed force gains weapons of greater destructive power and delivery systems capable of carrying these weapons further and faster, others strive to match them, for fear that they will be overwhelmed by these weapons in potential future conflicts. So the deadly spiral of the arms race escalates. As I have already pointed out, the effect of this escalation is to make us less, not more, secure. And as the cost of these weapons increases, so more and more of the world's productive resources are diverted to their production. At the same time, states are forced to tighten control of their populations: to tax and conscript them, against their wills, to provide the resources and personnel necessary for war.
Debate Doctors 2012
57
WAR ENDANGERS THE DEMOCRATIC STATE

Alexandra, A. (Oct 2003). Political pacifism. Social Theory and Practice. , 29, 4. p.589(18). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Indeed, there is evidence that the growth in the institution of war has been at the expense of Kantian institutions. The American political historian Brian Downing, for example, has argued that the historical record shows a contrast between, on the one hand, states that have been heavily involved in war and were either destroyed in conflict or suffered the rise of a form of a militarybureaucratic form of government at the expense of existing (proto-Kantian) constitutional government forms, and, on the other hand, states that were able to avoid such involvement, where "constitutional government endured and provided a basis for the development of democracy." (36) Alexandra, A. (Oct 2003). Political pacifism. Social Theory and Practice. , 29, 4. p.589(18). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: So, finally, the fact that the growth of military institutions appears likely to subvert reasonably just constitutional democracies provides a reason for the supporter of such polities to favor pacifism; and conversely, the fact that such polities make the fighting of wars less likely provides a reason for pacifists to favor them. (37)
Debate Doctors 2012
58
RELIGIOUS PACIFISM IS RELEVANT TO THE WORLD

Hauerwas, S., & Sider, J. A. (Dec 2002). Pacifism redux. (Correspondence). First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life. , p.2(3). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: So, while we will not say that Christian ethics is for everyone, neither will we say that the Church's life operates only within a restricted ghetto. The nonviolent witness of the Church is a public and evangelical proclamation, accessible, at least in part, to the watching world. Prof. Cole is therefore wrong to suggest that the pacifism of the messianic community offers no strategy for making the world more peaceful. We believe that the very existence of the Church is such a "strategy," beginning with the refusal of Christians to kill other Christians, which is at least the necessary condition for Christians to explore amid the ambiguities of the world what less violent alternatives might exist.
Debate Doctors 2012
59
JUST WAR IS A CHRISTIAN CONCEPT

Hauerwas, S., & Sider, J. A. (Dec 2002). Pacifism redux. (Correspondence). First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life. , p.2(3). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Rather, just war doctrine is based on the Christian commitment to seek justice in a fallen world. We are sympathetic with attempts to so understand just war, but we think the issues surrounding this understanding of just war are much more complex than Prof. Cole's account suggests. He defends the "ahistorical nature" of the just war doctrine, but surely for people who seek to go to war justly it makes some difference what kind of society they think is capable of doing so. Does just war, for example, require some form of Christendom if we are to be sure the war is undertaken by a legitimate authority? What difference does it make that advocates of just war work within the presumptions of a realist foreign policy--as in the case of United States foreign policy--which assumes that one must do evil that good may come? This is to say that we disagree with Prof. Cole's claim that the criteria for ius ad bellum are not historically conditioned. He is quite right to reject consequential reasoning, but it is not clear what difference that should make for just war reflection in our world.
Hauerwas, S., & Sider, J. A. (Dec 2002). Pacifism redux. (Correspondence). First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life. , p.2(3). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Prof. Cole eloquently argues that those committed to just war also must suffer for their convictions. But it remains unclear to us what specific costs he thinks just war thinking may exact. Yoder sympathetically explored these questions in his When War Is Unjust: Being Honest in Just War Thinking (revised edition, Orbis, 1996), and as far as we know no advocate of just war reflection has responded to the challenges Yoder presented in that book. Seldom, for instance, does any advocate of just war address the issue concerning whether all the criteria of just war need to be met if the war is to be undertaken by Christians.
Debate Doctors 2012
60
IF WAR IS MORAL WHY DOES IT MAKE SO MANY PEOPLE SAD?

Hauerwas, S., & Sider, J. A. (Dec 2002). Pacifism redux. (Correspondence). First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life. , p.2(3). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Finally, we wonder what Prof. Cole can possibly mean when he says that it is "a sad fact that Christians are always going to have to use violence" and yet also maintain that when just warriors use force justly, "such acts bear no stain of evil." Why, on Aquinas' or Calvin's grounds, would it be appropriate to feel sorrow for an action that is justified? When Aquinas, for instance, asks "Whether sorrow is compatible with moral virtue?" he repeats Aristotle, saying, "To have controlled sorrow for what we should feel sorry about is a mark of virtue" (Summa Theologiae, I-II, 59, 3). In this way, Aquinas is careful to distinguish appropriate objects of sorrow from inappropriate ones, such that he may say that the virtuous person may feel sadness for another's sin. But he does not say that a Christian should feel sorry about an act of justice. Admittedly, in the medieval world penance was required from those returning from a just war, but surely such a requirement was because the Church continued to have some sense that war is incompatible with the gospel. Prof. Cole does not think war is incompatible with the gospel. So why is he sad?
Debate Doctors 2012
61
WAR IS NOT A LEGITIMATE COURSE OF ACTION THUS IMMORAL

Schott, R. M. (April-June 2008). Just war and the problem of evil.(Critical essay) Hypatia , 23, 2. p.122(19). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Following thinkers like Immanuel Kant and Hannah Arendt, I will argue against the thesis that war can be just. In his 1795 essay "To Perpetual Peace," Kant wrote, "The concept of the right of nations as a right to go to war is meaningless.... It serves justly those men who are disposed to seek one another's destruction and thus to find perpetual peace in the grave that covers all the horrors of violence and its perpetrators" (1795/1983, 117). And Hannah Arendt later wrote, "Violence can be justifiable, but it will never be legitimate" (1970, 52). Schott, R. M. (April-June 2008). Just war and the problem of evil.(Critical essay) Hypatia , 23, 2. p.122(19). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: The lessons I wish to draw from my reading of Kant's views of evil and of war are the following: 1) His analysis of radical evil shows that while conflict is endemic to human existence, violent conflict is not inevitable. 2) War is not a rational expression of human freedom, hence war is immoral. 3) The task of the moral and political philosopher therefore is not to ratify specific wars and to castigate others, but to present an alternative narrative of historical development that could transform the conditions that create wars.
Debate Doctors 2012
62
NON-COMBATANTS SHOULD NOT BE KILLED

Ceulemans, C. (Winter 2007). The moral equality of combatants. (Essay). Parameters. , 37, 4. p.99(11). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale According to the Just War tradition a war can only be just if two sets of principles are satisfied. (1) First there is the jus ad bellum. These principles tell us when it is just to start a war. There has to be a good reason or a just cause in order for a war to be morally permissible (self-defense, defense of others, putting a stop to human rights violations). The decision to go to war has to be taken by a legitimate authority. Those who wage war need to be motivated by good intentions (desire to promote a more stable peace). War should not only be a last resort (necessity), it must also offer a reasonable chance of success. Moreover, the good the warring party hopes to obtain should outweigh the evil caused by the war (proportionality). The second set of principles, the jus in bello or the right in the war, focuses on the moral constraints that need to be observed during hostilities. Noncombatants must never be the intentional target of military actions (discrimination), and the military utility of a particular act of war has to outweigh the damage it will cause. Schott, R. M. (April-June 2008). Just war and the problem of evil.(Critical essay) Hypatia , 23, 2. p.122(19). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: The central premise in the doctrine of double effect is the distinction between combatants and noncombatants. Whereas killing enemy soldiers is part of the moral reality of war, the killing of civilians is not. When civilians become targeted by military violence, this act must be viewed as evil.
Schott, R. M. (April-June 2008). Just war and the problem of evil.(Critical essay) Hypatia , 23, 2. p.122(19). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Since there is substantial debate about the distinction between combatants and noncombatants, I will only align myself with those who claim that this distinction is ultimately untenable. This distinction does not provide a meaningful measure of the dangers posed to civilians during wartime. For example, in World War II, one database lists over 19 million total combatant deaths and over 17 million total civilian deaths. (5) In the Vienam War, there were an estimated 1.1 million Vietcong guerillas and North Vietnamese soldiers who died, and an estimated 2 million civilian deaths in the north and south between 1954 and 1975. (6) In the recent war in Iraq, unnamed U.S. military officials have said that between 10,000 and 15,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed, and the estimates of civilians killed by military intervention range between 21,705 and 24,628. (7) These examples indicate that civilian casualties in military conflict are almost as high as combatant casualties, and often are significantly higher.
Debate Doctors 2012
63
WAR IS NOT JUST ON BOTH SIDES SOMETIMES ON NEITHER SIDE

Schott, R. M. (April-June 2008). Just war and the problem of evil.(Critical essay) Hypatia , 23, 2. p.122(19). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Most wars are just on one side (xii). And although there are wars that are just on neither side (including the recent U.S. war against Iraq) (Walter 2006, 163), no war can be just on both sides (Walter 1992, 59).
Debate Doctors 2012
64
MORAL JUSTIFICATION IS NOT A GOOD EXPLANATION FOR WAR

Schott, R. M. (April-June 2008). Just war and the problem of evil.(Critical essay) Hypatia , 23, 2. p.122(19). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Some just war theorists shy away from invoking the concept of evil in relation to just war theory. James Turner Johnson, for example, writes, "The punishment of evil is, in my judgment, the least useful of the classic formulations of just cause in the present context. One reason for this is the prevalence of ideological divisions in the contemporary world. This line of justification for the use of force to protect value is all too easily changed into a justification for ideological warfare by one's own 'forces of light' against the 'forces of darkness' with their different ideological beliefs" (1992, 58-59).
Debate Doctors 2012
65
JUST WAR IS A CHRISTIAN CONCEPT

Hauerwas, S., & Sider, J. A. (Dec 2002). Pacifism redux. (Correspondence). First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life. , p.2(3). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Rather, just war doctrine is based on the Christian commitment to seek justice in a fallen world. We are sympathetic with attempts to so understand just war, but we think the issues surrounding this understanding of just war are much more complex than Prof. Cole's account suggests. He defends the "ahistorical nature" of the just war doctrine, but surely for people who seek to go to war justly it makes some difference what kind of society they think is capable of doing so. Does just war, for example, require some form of Christendom if we are to be sure the war is undertaken by a legitimate authority? What difference does it make that advocates of just war work within the presumptions of a realist foreign policy--as in the case of United States foreign policy--which assumes that one must do evil that good may come? This is to say that we disagree with Prof. Cole's claim that the criteria for ius ad bellum are not historically conditioned. He is quite right to reject consequential reasoning, but it is not clear what difference that should make for just war reflection in our world.
Hauerwas, S., & Sider, J. A. (Dec 2002). Pacifism redux. (Correspondence). First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life. , p.2(3). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale:
Prof. Cole eloquently argues that those committed to just war also must suffer for their convictions. But it remains unclear to us what specific costs he thinks just war thinking may exact. Yoder sympathetically explored these questions in his When War Is Unjust: Being Honest in Just War Thinking (revised edition, Orbis, 1996), and as far as we know no advocate of just war reflection has responded to the challenges Yoder presented in that book. Seldom, for instance, does any advocate of just war address the issue concerning whether all the criteria of just war need to be met if the war is to be undertaken by Christians.
Debate Doctors 2012
66
IF WAR IS MORAL WHY DOES IT MAKE SO MANY PEOPLE SAD?

Hauerwas, S., & Sider, J. A. (Dec 2002). Pacifism redux. (Correspondence). First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life. , p.2(3). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale:
Finally, we wonder what Prof. Cole can possibly mean when he says that it is "a sad fact that Christians are always going to have to use violence" and yet also maintain that when just warriors use force justly, "such acts bear no stain of evil." Why, on Aquinas' or Calvin's grounds, would it be appropriate to feel sorrow for an action that is justified? When Aquinas, for instance, asks "Whether sorrow is compatible with moral virtue?" he repeats Aristotle, saying, "To have controlled sorrow for what we should feel sorry about is a mark of virtue" (Summa Theologiae, I-II, 59, 3). In this way, Aquinas is careful to distinguish appropriate objects of sorrow from inappropriate ones, such that he may say that the virtuous person may feel sadness for another's sin. But he does not say that a Christian should feel sorry about an act of justice. Admittedly, in the medieval world penance was required from those returning from a just war, but surely such a requirement was because the Church continued to have some sense that war is incompatible with the gospel. Prof. Cole does not think war is incompatible with the gospel. So why is he sad?
Debate Doctors 2012
67
WAR IS NOT A LEGITIMATE COURSE OF ACTION THUS IMMORAL

Schott, R. M. (April-June 2008). Just war and the problem of evil.(Critical essay) Hypatia , 23, 2. p.122(19). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Following thinkers like Immanuel Kant and Hannah Arendt, I will argue against the thesis that war can be just. In his 1795 essay "To Perpetual Peace," Kant wrote, "The concept of the right of nations as a right to go to war is meaningless.... It serves justly those men who are disposed to seek one another's destruction and thus to find perpetual peace in the grave that covers all the horrors of violence and its perpetrators" (1795/1983, 117). And Hannah Arendt later wrote, "Violence can be justifiable, but it will never be legitimate" (1970, 52). Schott, R. M. (April-June 2008). Just war and the problem of evil.(Critical essay) Hypatia , 23, 2. p.122(19). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: The lessons I wish to draw from my reading of Kant's views of evil and of war are the following: 1) His analysis of radical evil shows that while conflict is endemic to human existence, violent conflict is not inevitable. 2) War is not a rational expression of human freedom, hence war is immoral. 3) The task of the moral and political philosopher therefore is not to ratify specific wars and to castigate others, but to present an alternative narrative of historical development that could transform the conditions that create wars.
Debate Doctors 2012
68
NON-COMBATANTS SHOULD NOT BE KILLED

Ceulemans, C. (Winter 2007). The moral equality of combatants. (Essay). Parameters. , 37, 4. p.99(11). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale According to the Just War tradition a war can only be just if two sets of principles are satisfied. (1) First there is the jus ad bellum. These principles tell us when it is just to start a war. There has to be a good reason or a just cause in order for a war to be morally permissible (self-defense, defense of others, putting a stop to human rights violations). The decision to go to war has to be taken by a legitimate authority. Those who wage war need to be motivated by good intentions (desire to promote a more stable peace). War should not only be a last resort (necessity), it must also offer a reasonable chance of success. Moreover, the good the warring party hopes to obtain should outweigh the evil caused by the war (proportionality). The second set of principles, the jus in bello or the right in the war, focuses on the moral constraints that need to be observed during hostilities. Noncombatants must never be the intentional target of military actions (discrimination), and the military utility of a particular act of war has to outweigh the damage it will cause.
Schott, R. M. (April-June 2008). Just war and the problem of evil.(Critical essay) Hypatia , 23, 2. p.122(19). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: The central premise in the doctrine of double effect is the distinction between combatants and noncombatants. Whereas killing enemy soldiers is part of the moral reality of war, the killing of civilians is not. When civilians become targeted by military violence, this act must be viewed as evil.
Schott, R. M. (April-June 2008). Just war and the problem of evil.(Critical essay) Hypatia , 23, 2. p.122(19). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Since there is substantial debate about the distinction between combatants and noncombatants, I will only align myself with those who claim that this distinction is ultimately untenable. This distinction does not provide a meaningful measure of the dangers posed to civilians during wartime. For example, in World War II, one database lists over 19 million total combatant deaths and over 17 million total civilian deaths. (5) In the Vienam War, there were an estimated 1.1 million Vietcong guerillas and North Vietnamese soldiers who died, and an estimated 2 million civilian deaths in the north and south between 1954 and 1975. (6) In the recent war in Iraq, unnamed U.S. military officials have said that between 10,000 and 15,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed, and the estimates of civilians killed by military intervention range between 21,705 and 24,628. (7) These examples indicate that civilian casualties in military conflict are almost as high as combatant casualties, and often are significantly higher.
Debate Doctors 2012
69
WAR IS NOT JUST ON BOTH SIDES SOMETIMES ON NEITHER SIDE

Schott, R. M. (April-June 2008). Just war and the problem of evil.(Critical essay) Hypatia , 23, 2. p.122(19). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Most wars are just on one side (xii). And although there are wars that are just on neither side (including the recent U.S. war against Iraq) (Walter 2006, 163), no war can be just on both sides (Walter 1992, 59).
Debate Doctors 2012
70
MORAL JUSTIFICATION IS NOT A GOOD EXPLANATION FOR WAR

Schott, R. M. (April-June 2008). Just war and the problem of evil.(Critical essay) Hypatia , 23, 2. p.122(19). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: Some just war theorists shy away from invoking the concept of evil in relation to just war theory. James Turner Johnson, for example, writes, "The punishment of evil is, in my judgment, the least useful of the classic formulations of just cause in the present context. One reason for this is the prevalence of ideological divisions in the contemporary world. This line of justification for the use of force to protect value is all too easily changed into a justification for ideological warfare by one's own 'forces of light' against the 'forces of darkness' with their different ideological beliefs" (1992, 58-59).
Debate Doctors 2012
71
THE CAPACITY TO AFFECT CHANGE IS LIMITED

Schott, R. M. (April-June 2008). Just war and the problem of evil.(Critical essay) Hypatia , 23, 2. p.122(19). Retrieved August 15, 2008, from General OneFile via Gale: There is another factor that we as Americans must consider when we confront the atrocities on both sides. We bear a moral responsibility in any situation to the extent that we have the capacity to affect that situation. In the case of the Milosevic cruelties against the Kosovars, our capacity to intervene--which may have been greater before we rushed to bomb--is very limited, unless we go into a fullscale ground war. If that happens, the resulting tragedy will far exceed the one that has already taken place. But we have a direct responsibility for the cruelties our government inflicts by bombing innocent people in Yugoslavia.
Debate Doctors 2012
72

Debate Drs NFL LD March April 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debate Drs NFL LD March April 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debate Drs NFL LD March April 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

Debate Doctors Debate Briefs

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

EXAMINING THE RESOLUTION

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

Good Luck to both sides.

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

AFFIRMATIVE CASE 1: THE GREATEST HAPPINESS

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

AFFIRMATIVE CASE GREATEST HAPPINESS

CONTENTION 1: TERRORISM HAS CREATED A NEW KIND OF WAR

CONTENTION 3: TARGETED KILLING IS THE MORAL CHOICE

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS TO POSSIBLE NEGATIVE ATTACKS (attacks

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

AFFIRMATIVE CASE 2: DUTY

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

AFFIRMATIVE CASE: DUTY

CONTENTION 1: SOLDIERS ARE BY INTERNATIONAL ACCORD INNOCENT

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS TO POSSIBLE NEGATIVE ATTACKS (attacks

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

NEGATIVE CASE 1: UTILITY

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

NEGATIVE CASE: UTILITY

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

CONTENTION 2: SELF-DEFENSE ALONE IS NOT A REASON FOR TARGETED KILLING

CONTENTION 3: KILLING INNOCENTS IS NEVER RIGHT

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

ANSWERS TO POSSIBLE AFFIRMATIVE ATTACKS (attacks in red, answers in

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

NEGATIVE CASE 2: COMMON GOOD

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

NEGTIVE CASE: COMMON GOOD

The value I will uphold is Common Good By common I mean:

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy

Debate Doctors 2012

Targeted Killing as Foreign Policy