aff cases by fanzhongqing

VIEWS: 26 PAGES: 63

									SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                                                                  Baca/Veeder
Briana ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
JanaLee......................................................................................................................................................... 5
SaraH ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
Laura ........................................................................................................................................................... 10
Heath ........................................................................................................................................................... 14
Austin .......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Tabitha ........................................................................................................................................................ 21
Blake ........................................................................................................................................................... 24
Tim .............................................................................................................................................................. 28
Anthony ....................................................................................................................................................... 30
Dylan ........................................................................................................................................................... 33
Emma .......................................................................................................................................................... 35
Gurleen........................................................................................................................................................ 38
Dylan ........................................................................................................................................................... 41
HaleyJane ................................................................................................................................................... 43
Hunter.......................................................................................................................................................... 46
Jacob ........................................................................................................................................................... 50
Julia ............................................................................................................................................................. 54
Molly ............................................................................................................................................................ 59




                                                                                                                                                                   1
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                     Baca/Veeder

                                                 BRIANA
Utilitarianism- (Spock)
Briana Padilla

I affirm.

 The affirmative defines targeted killing as the means to whether a state that has been subjected to
attacks by a transnational terrorist group may target active members of that group who are not in its
jurisdiction has caused controversy. Also refer to targeted killings of suspected terrorists as extra-judicial
executions; others claim they are legitimate acts of war. Thus the topic is based upon upholding
international security and international humanitarian law. V-Morality VC-Maximizing Net benifits

Doctrine of Double Effect - Important Moral Distinction between intended harm and foreseen harm
F. M. Kamm, Terror and Collateral Damage: Are They Permissible?, The Journal of Ethics, Vol. 9, No. 3/4,
(2005), pp. 381-401

The doctrine that is typically relied on to explain what one may or may not do to noncombatants, when
one has not been able to is known as the Doctrine of Double Effect . The DDE claims that there is a
significant moral distinction between intending harm as an end or a means, even a means to a greater
good, and doing some act that you foresee will, with certainty cause just as much harm, but merely as a
side effect. The latter is sometimes referred to as "collateral damage".

Thus the standard we should look towards is Maximizing Net Benefits.

C1-TK's are efficient

Sub A- Drones are an essential tool in preventing terrorism

Greg Bruno, Staff Writer, CFR.org, Council on Foreign Relations, "Raising the Curtain on U.S. Drone
Strikes", 2010, online

drone strikes are an essential tool for killing terrorists who provide guidance and operational support for
international terrorism. The killing of al-Yazid represents an important victory, given his connections to
terrorist plots abroad, and his declarations that al-Qaeda would use nuclear weapons against the United
States

Sub B- Kalsoom Lakhani 09 It's war, people die -TKs minimize the harms of war

why does the United States continue to champion such a policy? because it is their best worst option.
Unlike fighter jets or cruise missiles, Predators can loiter over their targets for more than 20 hours, take
photos in which men, women and children can be clearly distinguished and deliver laser-guided munitions
with low explosive yields. From a U.S. standpoint, the use of drones are not only cheaper than
conventional planes, they also keep pilots and American soldiers "out of harm's way," , in a sign of
growing U.S. support for these drones, the military is spending significant more money on this technology,
from $880 million in 2007 to $2 billion a year. Several sources note that the strikes have disrupted Al
Qaeda's operations, bombs in the air are a better and more viable option than boots on the ground.

It's no surprise,hat war is a devestating time in a country's life. My first contention shows the direct impact
of TKs, which is the minimization of harms during times of conflict. By assassinating the few, we are able
to spare, and gain a bet benefit of lives.

C2-Tk's are helpful at preventing terrorism

Sub A- It is empirically proven that targeted killing substantially reduces the effectiveness of terrorist
operations as well as the lethality of the attacks.


                                                                                                                 2
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                   Baca/Veeder
Daniel Byman, Ph.D in Political Science, Director for Security Studies Program and for Peace and
Security Studies @ Georgetown, ÒForeign Affairs volume 85 no. 2Ó 2006, p.103
Bayman- The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) reports that in 2005, only

21 Israeli civilians died at the hands of HamasÑdown from 67 in 2004, 45 in 2003, 185 in 2002, and 75 in
2001. Figures for deaths of Israeli soldiers show a comparable decline. This drop-off occurred partly
because IsraelÕs targeted killings have shattered Palestinian terrorist groups and made it difficult for
them to conduct effective operations. Consider the lethality rate of Hamas attacks since the start of the
second intifada. The number of Hamas attacks grew steadily as the intifada progressed, even as Israel
eliminated Hamas members: there were 19 attacks in 2001, 34 in 2002, 46 in 2003, 202 in 2004, and 179
in 2005 (most in the first half of that year, before a tentative cease-fire took hold). But as the number of
attacks grew, the number of Israeli deaths they caused plunged, suggesting that the attacks themselves
became far less effective. The lethality rate rose from 3.9 deaths per attack in 2001 to 5.4 in 2002, its
highest point. Then, in 2003 the rate began to fall, dropping to 0.98 deaths per attack that year, 0.33 in
2004, and 0.11 in 2005.

Sub B- Drones help maintain fewer casualties
J.J. Green states 10- J.J. Green, " Collateral damage 'acceptable' when terrorists targeted" March 9, 2010,
WTOP, http://www.wtop.com/?nid=778&sid=1907176

"I think if we had a chance to kill Adolph Hitler with a drone and Ava Braun was going to be a part of the
collateral damage, I think that would be viewed as acceptable," "There's a strong parallel between that
and Baitullah Mehsud." Al-Qaida has admitted losing two key members in the last three months, suffering
significant damage to its ability to plan and launch terror attacks. . Collateral damage has historically been
a major concern for U.S. officials. "While the CIA does not comment on allegations of Predator operations,
the tactics and tools we use in the fight against al-Qaida and its violent allies are not only lawful, they are
exceptionally precise and effective,"

As further evidence to my case, I have shown you, just how TKs are effective in neutralizing the threat of
terrorism. We are able to effectively cripple the ranks among terrorist groups leaving, them shortsighted
and unable to attack. Simply put, judge, if were slow down terrorist organizations and cut off their means
of planning then they simply can't do anything.

It's like disturbing an ant trail. Ants are greatly organized, but have you ever tried rubbing away an ant
trail? The ants immediately become confused and wander around in a mad mess.

C3- Tks promotes country's hegemony Special Forces Is Critical to Long Term U.S.
Hegemony Targeted Killings are a large part of SOFs.)

Michele L. Malvesti, former Senior Director for Combating Terrorism Strategy on the National Security
Council, ÒTo Serve the Nation: U.S. Special Operations Forces in an Era of Persistent Conflict, 6/3/10

Malvesti states- U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) are experiencing their most extensive use and
greatest transformation In direct and leading roles in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in the broader U.S.
effort to defeat al Qaeda and violent extremism across the globe, these forces have become more
operationally adept, endowed with more resources and organizational capacity, and are encountering
greater demands for their leadership and expertise than ever before. SOF are in the midst of a
resurgence, with their core capabilities aligning with the irregular and potentially catastrophic security
threats of todayÕs geostrategic environment.       In spite of these developments, SOF are not yet
optimized for success. In order to enhance the strategic value of SOF and facilitate their continued
evolution in service three challenges should be addressed. SOF can advance U.S. efforts to disrupt and
help prevent threats and challengesfrom beyond traditional battlefields. However, the United States
continues to struggle with how best to apply Special Operations, outside theaters of combat. SOF ,
capabilities and the 21st-century threat environment are in many ways outpacing the nationÕs policies for
employing SOF.2 the various components within SOF have diverse proficiencies, cultures, and
approaches to Special Operations that provide the United States a broad spectrum of capability in
addressing an equally diverse set of security challenges.

                                                                                                             3
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                     Baca/Veeder
This is important, because the US acts as a big brother to the rest of the world. No, not the kind of "Big
Brother" described in 1984, but the kind that protects you when the middle school bullies are stealing your
lunch money. As such, with this topic, we must look towards the US as we have the resources to keep the
threat of terrorism, and the acts of war, at bay. It is our responsibility to allow TKs to keep the net benefits
within the topic.




                                                                                                              4
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                   Baca/Veeder

                                               JANALEE
I affirm.

My Value is Morality.

Standard Upholding Locke’s Social Contract
Any government is morally obligated to protect the basic rights of the governed. This is the essence of
Locke’s social contract. If the government fails to do so, it is then the right of the governed to do away
with that form of government.

Contention 1: Maintaining our rights
A) Terrorists are violating rights.
Terrorism directly violates both of the essential and all-encompassing rights. Terrorists have used their
rights to infringe upon others’ rights and have therefore forfeit their own.

Constitution Society, 2007 http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm
While a constitution prescribes the legal rights of individuals and the powers of government, the social
contract also includes certain duties which members assume upon entry. Those duties include the duty to
avoid infringing on the rights of other members, to obey just laws, to comply with and help enforce just
contracts, to serve on juries, and to defend the community.
It is important to recognize that although individuals have a right of self-defense in the state of nature,
when they enter into society under the social contract, the pooling of that right transforms it into a duty to
defend the community, and therefore to risk or sacrifice one's life, liberty, or property if such defense
should require it. The right of self-defense is no longer supreme, although it survives the transition to
society as a duty to defend oneself as part of the community. Pacifism in the face of mortal danger to
oneself or others is therefore not consistent with the social contract, and persons who insist on that
position must be considered not to be members of society or entitled to its benefits, and if they live in the
same country, have the status of resident aliens.

Therefore, the government is morally obligated to fight terrorism targeted against it’s own people.

Contention 2: Combating Terrorism
A) War is a foreign policy tool to be used where diplomacy and negotiation have failed. Terrorist refuse to
adhere to these policies, making force an obligation for the effected governments. Therefore, war is a
morally permissible foreign policy tool in that it protects the citizens rights to liberty and life. Several
governments, including Israel and the US are at war with terrorist organizations at the present.

C) Targeted killing is the best option as a war subset
In order for targeted killing to be classified as such, it must take place when there is an armed combat in
process, AKA: WAR
   It is the most effective war tactic in fighting terrorism.
Amos Guiora, Visiting Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law; served for
19 years in the Israel Defense Forces, Judge Advocate General Corps (Lt. Col.). The opinions expressed
are the authors alone. Special thanks to research assistant Niki Dorsky and colleagues Jon Leiken
and Marc Stern for their significant contributions to this work. 2005
Because the fight against terrorism takes place in what has been referred to as the "back alleys
and dark shadows against an unseen enemy," the State, in order to adequately defend itself, must
be able to take the fight to the terrorist before the terrorist takes the fight to it. From experience
gained over the years, it has become clear that the State must be able to act preemptively in order to
either deter terrorists or, at the very least, prevent the terrorist act from taking place. By now, we
have learned the price society pays if it is unable to prevent terrorist acts. The question that must be
answered—both from a legal and policy perspective—is what tools should be given to the State to
combat terrorism? What I term active self-defense would appear to be the most effective tool; that
is, rather than wait for the actual armed attack to “occur” (Article 51), the State must be able to act
anticipatorily (Caroline) against the non-State actor (not considered in Caroline).



                                                                                                             5
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                       Baca/Veeder
Targeted killing protects both the right to liberty and the right to life in a way that war does not. First, it
prevents many future attacks. It takes a high level of experience for terrorist to wage full scale attacks.

Daniel Byman, Ph.D in Political Science, Director for Security Studies Program and for Peace and
Security Studies @ Georgetown, “Foreign Affairs volume 85 no. 2” 2006, p.103-4

Contrary to popular myth, the number of skilled terrorists is quite limited. Bomb makers, terrorism trainers,
forgers, recruiters, and terrorist leaders are scarce; they need many months, if not years, to gain enough
expertise to be effective. When these individuals are arrested or killed, their organizations are disrupted.
The groups may still be able to attract recruits, but lacking expertise, these new recruits will not pose the
same kind of threat.

Second, it protects more of that government’s people. A prime example is U.S.

Kalsoom Lakhani, " Drone Attacks: Bombs in The Air Versus Boots on The Ground" July 20, 2009,
Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kalsoom-lakhani/drone-attacks-bombs-in-
th_b_241439.html

If the strategic costs outweigh the tactical benefits, why does the United States continue to champion
such a policy? Upon studying numerous articles and resources, the answer seems to be: because it is
their best worst option. According to an article in last week's Wall Street Journal, "Unlike fighter jets or
cruise missiles, Predators can loiter over their targets for more than 20 hours, take photos in
which men, women and children can be clearly distinguished (burqas can be visible from 20,000
feet) and deliver laser-guided munitions with low explosive yields. This minimizes the risks of the
'collateral damage' that often comes from 500-pound bombs." In Pakistan and Afghanistan, where the
U.S. operate the MQ-1 Predator and their more sophisticated successor MQ-9 Reaper drones, the most
impressive thing, noted the Atlantic, is that they fly slow. The news piece elaborated, "That's right, in
counterinsurgency operations, where the goal is to hunt and kill individuals or small groups of fighters --
rather than to attack mass infantry formations -- the slower a plane flies, the better." From a U.S.
standpoint, the use of drones are not only cheaper than conventional planes, they also keep pilots
and American soldiers "out of harm's way," particularly since most UAVs are manned from thousands
of miles away. The Air Force's Predator missions, for instance, are operated by pilots sitting in trailers at
Nellis Air Force base outside Las Vegas, Nevada. In the aforementioned 2006 Atlantic piece, "Hunting the
Taliban in Las Vegas," Robert Kaplan described the inside of one of these trailers, Like sub drivers, Pred
pilots fly blind, using only the visual depiction of their location on a map and math--numerical readouts
indicating latitude, longitude, height, wind speeds, ground elevation, nearby planes, and so forth. The
camera in the rotating ball focuses only on the object under surveillance. The crew's situational
awareness is restricted to the enemy on the ground. Much of the time during a stakeout, the Pred flies a
pre-programmed hexagon, racetrack, bow tie, or some other circular-type holding pattern. Each trailer
holds a two-person crew: a pilot and a "sensor," who operates the ball. Both face half a dozen computer
screens, including map displays and close-up shots of the object under surveillance. Today, MQ-9
Reapers are slowly replacing the Predators, which are a newer model and more heavily armed. And, in a
sign of growing U.S. support for these drones, the military is spending significant more money on
this technology, from $880 million in 2007 to $2 billion a year. Several sources note that the
strikes have disrupted Al Qaeda's operations, and Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence,
testified to Congress in February that "replacing the loss of key leaders since 2008 in Pakistan's Federally
Administered Tribal Areas has proved difficult for Al Qaeda." Someone speaking from a U.S. national
security standpoint would also point out that bombs in the air are a better and more viable option than
boots on the ground.

Jonathan Ulrich, received his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2005, and his A.B.,
cum laude, from Princeton University in 2002. He works as an associate in the International Arbitration
Group of White & Case, LLP, in Washington, D.C., “The Gloves Were Never On: Defining the President's
Authority to Order Targeted Killing in the War Against Terrorism” 2005
The foregoing examination of the basic requirements of the law of armed conflict reveals, in the words of
one commentator, that "targeted killing is the most natural application of the principles of jus in bello in
wars against terror." n112 The practice of assassination, even when justified by the exigencies and laws
of war, is not often viewed as a morally defensible use of force. And yet, the comparatively widespread
                                                                                                                  6
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                      Baca/Veeder
acceptance of the higher combatant deaths and collateral damage associated with conventional conflict is
more at odds with the basic jus in bello precept of limited war: The moral legitimacy of targeted killing
becomes even clearer when compared to the alternative means of fighting terror - that is, the massive
invasion of the community that shelters and supports the terrorists in an attempt to catch or kill the
terrorists and destroy their [*1054] infrastructure... Hence, targeted killing is the preferable method not
only because, on a utilitarian calculation, it saves lives - a very weighty moral consideration - but also
because it is more commensurate with a fundamental condition of justified self-defense, namely, that
those killed are responsible for the threat posed. n113 Targeted killing preserves not only the lives of
civilians caught up in the conflict by combatants who often refuse to fight in the open, but also those of
the troops who must engage these terrorists. n114 By directing the use of force at only those individuals
who threaten U.S. soldiers and civilians, targeted killing more efficiently destroys the terrorists' ability to
wage war and inflict terror, while ensuring that collateral damage is kept to a minimum. This is the very
essence of limited war as prescribed by jus in bello.

Target killing protects the rights of the governed during times of armed conflict. Target killing fulfills the
social contract more efficiently, fulfilling the government’s moral obligation to its people. Therefore, it is
not only morally permissible to use target killing, but is a preferred tool in forceful foreign policy.




                                                                                                                 7
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                                                                Baca/Veeder

                                                                        SARAH
Affirmative

I affirm the resolution: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

I offer the following definitions for the round:
Targeted killing - is the targeting and killing, Operated by a government or its agents, of an civilian or “unlawful
combatant” taking a direct part in hostilities in the context of an armed conflict who is not in that
government’s custody and cannot be reasonably apprehended.
(Source: http://targetedindividualscanada.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/definitions/)
Foreign policy - Policies of the federal government directed to matters beyond U.S. borders, especially
relations with other countries. Much domestic policy has foreign policy implications.
(Source: http://www.civiced.org/index.php?page=stds_glossary)
My value is: Morality, which is defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong. or
good and bad behavior. Morality can best be achieved through the affirmative position because it is in the best
interest of the people to prevent more harm, and deaths taking place in society.
My criterion to support my value is: Maximizing societal welfare. Societal welfare is defined as the state of
doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness safety, well-being, or prosperity for society. My
standard is a powerful weighing mechanism because maximizing this would call for a better functioning
society, and prevent future threats of terrorism.
My first contention is: We must look to consequentialism
Sub point A. In order to save more lives, sacrifices must be made:
Sissela Bok, Professor of Philosophy, Brandeis, Applied Ethics and Ethical Theory, Ed. David Rosenthal
and Fudlou Shehadi, 1988
The same argument can be made for Kant's other formulations of the Categorical Imperative: "So act as to use humanity, both in your own person and in the
person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means"; and "So act as if you were always through actions a law-making member in a
universal Kingdom of Ends."   No one with a concern for humanity could                                        risk eliminating humanity in the
                                                                                              consistently will to
person of himself and every other or to risk the death of all members in a universal Kingdom of Ends for the sake of justice. To risk their collective
death for the sake of following one's conscience would be, as Rawls said, "irrational, crazy." And To say that one did not intend such a
catastrophe, but that one merely failed to stop other persons from bringing it about would be beside the point when
the end of the world was at stake, For although it is true that we cannot be held responsible for most of the wrongs that others commit, the Latin
maxim presents a case where we would have to take such a responsibility seriously - perhaps to the point of
deceiving, bribing, even killing an innocent person, in order that the world not perish.


What Bok states in this evidence is that when there is a concern for humanity, we must look to see what
the options are at stake. If the world’s existence is at a risk, and an individual person’s life is at risk, you
would look to save that world in order for more life to continue. To assume the opposite of that would be a
direct violation to anyone’s sense of morality, and a great harm to societal welfare.

Sub point B. Consequentialism is a vehicle to resolve moral conflicts:
Baruch Brody, Prof. of Ethics at Rice University, ETHICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, 1983, p. 18.
Consequentialists do not claim to have an easy answer to this question. They do claim, however, that they can provide us with a vehicle for helping to resolve such
        From the consequentialist perspective, the existence of a conflict in rules is a signal that we are
conflicts.
dealing with one of those exceptional circumstances in which we cannot simply follow the soundest of
rules. The consequentialist, therefore, advises the judge to examine the consequences of each of the
options open to him and to choose the action with the best consequences. Here, the strength of the
consequentialist approach is that it points out those cases in which one cannot rely upon traditional moral
rules.
What this evidence states is that rules can change with circumstance. If moral rules tell us it’s wrong to kill,
but killing in the circumstance could save your life and many others, an example of this being a terrorist,
then rationally, you would disregard your original rule that told you killing was wrong and decide that lives
being saved is morally acceptable. This card is an important link to morality because it shows that
different circumstances call for different moral actions. With this, we can also see that if one is killed to
save many, then it greatly benefits the welfare of society by insuring fewer deaths, and diminishing the
threat of terrorism.

Sub point C. Utilitarianism can resolve clashing rights or duties

                                                                                                                                                                8
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                                       Baca/Veeder
Robin Barrow, Professor of Philosophy at Simon Fraser University, UTIL1TARIANISM: A
CONTEMPORARY STATEMENT, 1991. p 171.
Kant, St Paul, John Stuart Mill and John Doe all believe that we ought to keep promises. It is morally right
to do so. None can avoid the possibility of a dilemma, when in real life the obligation to keep a promise
clashes with some other obligation, though sometimes the utilitarian has what may seem as an
advantage over others, in that he has a rational way of turning what seemed like a dilemma into a soluble
problem.

What Barrow proves in this evidence is that no one knows when a conflict will appear. When this conflict
interferes with a plan that has already been made, causing a dilemma, it boils down to mainly two choices.
Turn the dilemma into something you can fix, even if it means alternating the original plan, or leave it be
and let it cause turmoil. The logical thing to do would be to try and fix the problem.

Contention two: Targeted killing is beneficial
Sub point A. Targeted killings are a key to deterring terrorists and stopping attacks
Gary Solis; 2006–2007 Scholar in Residence at the Library of Congress, a U.S. Military Academy
professor of law (retired), and an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center;
TARGETED KILLING AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT; Naval War College Review, Spring 2007,
Vol. 60, No. 2
Killing senior terrorists, expert bomb makers, and those who provide philosophical guidance for terrorists
may spare countless noncombatant victims. while, at the same time, forgoing risk to friendly combatant forces. A successful
targeted killing removes a dangerous enemy from the battlefield and deprives the foe of his leadership,
guidance, and experience. The targeted killing of terrorist leaders leaves subordinates confused and in
disarray., however temporarily. Successors will feel trepidation, knowing they too may be in the enemy’s sights.
Targeted killing unbalances terrorist organizations, making them concerned with protecting their own
membership and diverting them from their goals.
This expert states that when a targeted killing of a terrorist goes successfully, it is able to prevent future
attacks, and threats from occurring. This card has a clear link to the resolution because it shows the
beneficial outcomes of targeted killing. Through this evidence, we can also make the standard of
maximizing societal welfare possible by insuring the safety and well-being of that society.
Sub point B. Drones are proven to be effective
Richard Murphy and Afsheen John Radsan* Copyright (c) 2009 Yeshiva UniversityCardozo Law
Review: ARTICLE: DUE PROCESS AND TARGETED KILLING OF TERRORISTS
Suppose President Obama decides to kill a suspected terrorist. The President may use a marvel called the
"Predator drone," a small, unmanned aircraft equipped with surveillance cameras. 1 By Hellfire missiles
launched from the drone, he can kill people thousands of miles away from the White House. The target
does not see or hear the weapon as it is fired. The hit, from far enough away, has the tidiness of a video game.
The United States government has used the Predator with considerable success since 9/11. One important attack occurred in 2002, when a
Predator killed a group of al Qaeda members driving in the Yemeni desert. Their remote location ruled out
capture or conventional attack. So The President or one of his delegates gave an order. Then somebody pushed a
button that fired a missile, killing all the suspects. Among the dead was an American citizen. 3 Did our government mean to kill an
American this way? No one outside the cone of silence knows, and the CIA will neither confirm nor deny. 4
This evidence has a clear example as to how drones have been a successful tool in targeted killing. This
is an important card which shows the threat of terrorism being prevented. With all of the evidence I’ve
provided, and how I have been able to show the importance of target killing, I ask you to affirm.




                                                                                                                                    9
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                    Baca/Veeder

                                                  LAURA
I affirm.

To clarify for this debate, “targeted killing” is the intentional targeted killing by a government or its
agents that looks specifically to terrorists or unlawful combatants who are not in the government’s custody.

The value is morality.

The resolution explicitly states morality as permissible. We cannot, in a right conscious, morally permit the
deaths of innocent civilians as a “side effect” of combat war. Thus, the standard is achieving the
greatest number of innocent lives saved.

Contention One: Targeted killings debilitate terrorist groups long enough for us to lead a serious
attack against them.

Targeted killings cripple terrorist organizations.
Byman writes:
Daniel L. Byman, Professor at Georgetown University and Research Director of the Saban Center at
Brookings Institution, The Targeted Killings Debate, Expert Roundup, Council on Foreign Relations, June
8, 2011, http://www.cfr.org/international-peace-and-security/targeted-killings-debate/p25230
Killing terrorist leaders and key lieutenants not only brings justice to our enemies, but can devastate the
group in question. Killing a leader like bin Laden removes a charismatic yet pragmatic leader--one who
succeeded in transforming a small group into a household name and proved time and again he could
attract recruits and funding. His replacement, be it Ayman al-Zawahiri or another senior al-Qaeda figure,
may prove less charismatic and less able to unify this fissiparous movement. Some existing affiliates and
cells may split off, and the core might be eclipsed by rivals. Less dramatic, but no less important, is a
campaign against lieutenants and bomb-makers, passport-forgers, travel-facilitators, and others whose
skills cannot easily be replaced--essentially what the United States has been doing since the end of the
Bush administration in Pakistan through drone strikes. When these individuals are hit, and hit again, it is
possible to exhaust the terrorist group's bench. During the Second Intifada, Israel found that initial strikes
against Palestinian cell leaders and bomb-makers had only a limited impact on the terrorist groups it
faced, as eager replacements quickly took over. Eventually, however, there was a bottom to the barrel
and less skilled, less motivated people took over. An often-neglected impact of killing terrorist leaders is
on what they and their group do not do. When a campaign against lieutenants is in full-gear, they must
spend much of their time in hiding or moving from place to place. Communicating by phone becomes
risky, and the circle of trust shrinks, making meetings or large-scale training harder to pull off. The hunt for
spies within can become all-consuming. In the end, leaders are less able to lead, and the group's
cohesion and strategic direction suffer.
And, with targeted killings, we can limit the use of our resources to target only those who we deem key
operatives;
Solis writes:

Gary Solis; 2006–2007 Scholar in Residence at the Library of Congress, a U.S. Military Academy
professor of law (retired), and an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center;
TARGETED KILLING AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT; Naval War College Review, Spring 2007,
Vol. 60, No. 2

Killing senior terrorists, expert bomb makers, and those who provide philosophical guidance for terrorists
may spare countless noncombatant victims while, at the same time, forgoing risk to friendly combatant
forces. A successful targeted killing removes a dangerous enemy from the battlefield and deprives the foe
of his leadership, guidance, and experience. The targeted killing of terrorist leaders leaves subordinates
confused and in disarray, however temporarily. Successors will feel trepidation, knowing they too may be
in the enemy’s sights. Targeted killing unbalances terrorist organizations, making them concerned with
protecting their own membership and diverting them from their goals.


And, it is empirically proven;

                                                                                                            10
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                     Baca/Veeder
Byman writes:

Daniel Byman, Ph.D in Political Science, Director for Security Studies Program and for Peace and
Security Studies @ Georgetown, “Foreign Affairs volume 85 no. 2” 2006, p.103

The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) reports that in 2005, only 21 Israeli
civilians died at the hands of Hamas—down from 67 in 2004, 45 in 2003, 185 in 2002, and 75 in 2001.
Figures for deaths of Israeli soldiers show a comparable decline. This drop-off occurred partly because
Israel’s targeted killings have shattered Palestinian terrorist groups and made it difficult for them to
conduct effective operations. Consider the lethality rate of Hamas attacks since the start of the second
intifada. The number of Hamas attacks grew steadily as the intifada progressed, even as Israel eliminated
Hamas members: there were 19 attacks in 2001, 34 in 2002, 46 in 2003, 202 in 2004, and 179 in 2005
(most in the first half of that year, before a tentative cease-fire took hold). But as the number of attacks
grew, the number of Israeli deaths they caused plunged, suggesting that the attacks themselves became
far less effective. The lethality rate rose from 3.9 deaths per attack in 2001 to 5.4 in 2002, its highest point.
Then, in 2003 the rate began to fall, dropping to 0.98 deaths per attack that year, 0.33 in 2004, and 0.11
in 2005.




And, when skilled terrorists are assassinated it disrupts operations;
Byman writes:

Daniel Byman, Ph.D in Political Science, Director for Security Studies Program and for Peace and
Security Studies @ Georgetown, “Foreign Affairs volume 85 no. 2” 2006, p.103-4

Contrary to popular myth, the number of skilled terrorists is quite limited. Bomb makers, terrorism trainers,
forgers, recruiters, and terrorist leaders are scarce; they need many months, if not years, to gain enough
expertise to be effective. When these individuals are arrested or killed, their organizations are disrupted.
The groups may still be able to attract recruits, but lacking expertise, these new recruits will not pose the
same kind of threat.

[Impact]: Targeted killing gives us, and any other state opposed to terrorism, the opportunity for a full-
fledged attack on the group after it has been weakened. Instead of rushing in to a country with our troops
and storming the area until we’ve decided that enough damage has been done, we can pinpoint the few
key members, take them out, and then attack once the group as a whole has been weakened. It’s the
most effective approach for counter-terrorism that will save valuable time, resources, and lives: the lives
of not only our own military, but those of innocent civilians as well.


Contention Two: Targeted killings provide states their right to self-defense while keeping the
overall number of casualties (including civilians) down to its lowest.


Targeted killings should be morally preferred over other methods used;
Statman writes:

Daniel Statman, Department of Philosophy, University of Haifa, “The Morality of Assassination: A reply to
Gross”, Political Studies (2003) vol. 51. pp. 775-779, Ebsco

Third, while assassination does involve some moral risk, it also has a chance of achieving better results
from a moral point of view. Think of a battle in a conventional war against an enemy unit. Assume it can
be won either by bombing the unit from the air, killing 200 soldiers, or by having its headquarters targeted
by an ‘intelligent’ missile, killing most of the commanders of the unit – say, 25 officers. If both tactics could
achieve the same result, then surely the second tactic should be morally preferred. Similarly, if Bin Laden
and 30 of his close partners had been targeted, that would have been far better than killing thousands of
                                                                                                              11
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                     Baca/Veeder
people and causing enormous damage in Afghanistan, in a war whose contribution to the cessation of
world terror is far from clear.

And, states have a right to targeted killings as a defense of state and innocent citizens;
Guiora writes:

Amos Guiora, Visiting Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law; served for
19 years in the Israel Defense Forces, Judge Advocate General Corps (Lt. Col.). The opinions expressed
are the authors alone. Special thanks to research assistant Niki Dorsky and colleagues Jon Leiken and
Marc Stern for their significant contributions to this work. 2005

Active self-defense (in the form of targeted killing), if properly executed, not only enables the State
to more effectively protect itself within a legal context but also leads to minimizing the loss of
innocent civilians caught between the terrorists (who regularly violate international law by using
innocents as human shields) and the State. “(I)n time of war or armed conflict innocents always
become casualties. It is precisely because targeted killing, when carried out correctly, minimizes
such casualties that it is a preferable option to bombing or large military sweeps that do far more
harm to genuine noncombatants.”


And, with targeted killing, we can maintain fewer civilian casualties;
Green writes:


J.J. Green, " Collateral damage 'acceptable' when terrorists targeted" March 9, 2010, WTOP,
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=778&sid=1907176

In August of last year, Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud was spending a humid night on the roof
of his father-in-law's house in South Waziristan. As he relaxed while his wife massaged his legs to ease
the painful symptoms of diabetes, a launch order was given for a missile aboard a U.S. drone flying high
above in the Afghani sky. In a matter of seconds, the house was reduced to little more than a smoking
pile of rubble. Mehsud was killed. So were his wife and bodyguards. "That's an acceptable price for taking
out a senior leader in the Taliban," says David Rittgers, a former Special Forces operator who has served
three tours in Afghanistan. "I think if we had a chance to kill Adolph Hitler with a drone and Ava
Braun was going to be a part of the collateral damage, I think that would be viewed as
acceptable," Rittgers adds. "There's a strong parallel between that and Baitullah Mehsud." Al-Qaida
has admitted losing two key members in the last three months, suffering significant damage to its
ability to plan and launch terror attacks. Saleh al- Somali, senior external operations planner, and
Abdullah Said, chief of internal operations, were both allegedly killed in separate U.S. drone strikes.
Collateral damage has historically been a major concern for U.S. officials. It remains a prickly issue
today. While eliminating more than a dozen top al-Qaida linked terror targets since 2004, hundreds of
civilians have died in the process. "While the CIA does not comment on allegations of Predator
operations, the tactics and tools we use in the fight against al-Qaida and its violent allies are not
only lawful, they are exceptionally precise and effective," says CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano.



[Impact]: The negative may offer other solutions such as diplomacy or pacifism. However, desirable as
the complete elimination of violence altogether may sound, it’s not at all realistic.

Diplomacy
We’re dealing with radical terrorists, not countries. The reasons for their attacks stem from their dislike
about something we as a country do or have done. If we attempt to talk to and appease them, then we
are bending to their will. Where will it stop? Will it end with their control over us? As terrorists, they’re not
interested in making negotiations to live peacefully. They are interested in fighting for what they believe in.
If they’re not hesitant about resorting to violence to get their message across, then we have the right to
defend our nation against said attacks.

                                                                                                             12
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                 Baca/Veeder
Pacifism
We can try to take the non-violent approach, but what do we do if Al Qaeda keeps attack us? Generally, if
you accept pacifism then you are rejecting self-defense (1).


Thus, I affirm.

Additional Notes:
In mid-1979, the United States began to give several hundred million dollars a year in aid to the Afghan
Mujahideen soldiers and Muslims from other countries rebelling against the Democratic Republic of
Afghanistan and the Soviet Army during Operation Cyclone. Osama bin Laden was one of those Muslims
we aided. Fast forward 12 years and he’s conducting the destruction of the country that helped his cause.

Not advocating for the United States to jump the gun on every terrorist organization out there, but those
who have directly threatened us (or associated with a group that has threatened us), such as Osama bin
Laden (9/11), Ayman al-Zawahiri (doctor to bin Laden), Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (acts of violence in Iraq),
and Anwar al-Awlaki (dual-citizen of the U.S. and Yemen; acts of violence over the years in the country).
However, if another country asks us for help in targeting a terrorist, only then is it open to discussion.

(1) Ethical Consistency Principles
Harry J. Gensler

The Philosophical Quarterly
Vol. 35, No. 139 (Apr., 1985), pp. 156-170
Published by: Blackwell Publishing for The Philosophical Quarterly
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2219341




                                                                                                        13
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                   Baca/Veeder

                                                 HEATH
I affirm.

Seeing that the few countries that have adopted targeted killing use it solely as a method to combat
terrorism, it is logical to assume that arguments about targeted killing should pertain to their
implementation in the fight against terror.

I value morality, and the standard by which I reach morality is the preservation of human life.
            1
Ailinski writes,

The practical revolutionary will understand Geothe's "conscience is the virtue of observers and not of
agents of action in action one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with
one’s individual conscience and the good of [humankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action
is for mass salvation and not for the individual's personal salvation. He [or she1 who sacrifices the mass
good for his personal conscience has peculiar conception of "personal salvation"; he doesn't care enough
for people to be "corrupted" for them. The people [men] who pile up the heaps of discussion and literature
on the ethics of means and ends-which with rare exception is conspicuous for its sterility-rarely write
about their won experiences in the perpetual struggle of life and change. They are strangers, moreover,
to the burdens and problems of operational responsibility and the unceasing pressure for immediate
decisions. They are passionately committed to a mystical objectivity where passions are suspect. They
assume a nonexistent situation where men dispassionately and with reason draw and devise means and
ends as if studying a navigational chart on land. They can be recognized by one of two verbal brands;
"We agree with the ends but not the means," or "This is not the time." The means-and- end moralists or
non-doers always wind up on their ends without any means. The means-and- 'ends moralists, constantly
obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search
themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive-but real-allies of the Haves. They
are the ones Jacques Maritain referred to in his statement, "The fear of soiling ourselves by entering the
context of history is not virtue, but a way of escaping virtue." These non-doers were the ones who chose
not to fight the Nazis in the only way they could have been fought; they were the ones who drew their
window blinds to shut out the shameful spectacle of Jews and political prisoners being dragged through
the streets; they were the ones who privately deplored the horror of it all-and did nothing. This is the nadir
of immorality. The most unethical of all means is the nonuse of any means.
            2
Harries furthers,

Performance is the test. Asked directly by a Western interviewer, “In principle, do you believe in one
standard of human rights and free expression?”, Lee immediately answers, “Look, it is not a matter of
principle but of practice.” This might appear to represent a simple and rather crude pragmatism. But in its
context it might also be interpreted as an appreciation of the fundamental point made by Max Weber that,
in politics, it is “the ethic of responsibility” rather than “the ethic of absolute ends” that is appropriate.
While an individual is free to treat human rights as absolute, to be observed whatever the cost,
governments must always weigh consequences and the competing claims of other ends. So once they
enter the realm of politics, human rights have to take their place in a hierarchy of interests, including such
basic things as national security and the promotion of prosperity. Their place in that hierarchy will vary
with circumstances, but no responsible government will ever be able to put them always at the top and
treat them as inviolable and over-riding. The cost of implementing and promoting them will always have to
be considered.
     3
Bok writes,

The same argument can be made for Kant's other formulations of the Categorical Imperative: "So act as
to use humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an
end, never simply as a means"; and "So act as if you were always through actions a law-making member
in a universal Kingdom of Ends." No one with a concern for humanity could consistently will to risk
eliminating humanity in the person of himself and every other or to risk the death of all members in a
universal Kingdom of Ends for the

                                                                                                           14
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                   Baca/Veeder
sake of justice. To risk their collective death for the sake of following one's conscience would be, as
Rawls said, "irrational, crazy." And to say that one did not

___________________________________
1. Saul D. Ailinski, Activist, Prof, Social Organizer with Int'l Fame, Founder of Industrial Areas Foundation,
Rules for Radicals, 1971, p. 24-7
2. Sissela Bok, Professor of Philosophy, Brandeis, Applied Ethics and Ethical Theory, Ed. David
Rosenthal and Fudlou Shehadi, 1988
3. Owen Harries, editor and founder of National Interest, Senior Fellow at Centre for Independent Studies,
Spring 1993/1994, “Power and Civilization,” The National Interest

intend such a catastrophe, but that one merely failed to stop other persons from bringing it about would
be beside the point when the end of the world was at stake, For although it is true that we cannot be held
responsible for most of the wrongs that others commit, the Latin maxim presents a case where we would
have to take such a responsibility seriously - perhaps to the point of deceiving, bribing, even killing an
innocent person, in order that the world not perish.
   4
Uyl writes
Why should this be the standard for moral evaluation? Why must this be the ultimate moral value? Why
not "death" or "the greatest happiness for the greatest number"? Man's life must be the standard for
judging moral value because this is the end toward which all goal-directed action (in this case purposive
action) is directed, and we have already shown why goal-directed behavior depends on life. Indeed, one
cannot make a choice without implicitly choosing life as the end.

Because the preservation of the most amount of life must be valued over everything else, I contend that:

The use of unmanned aerial vehicles is an effective method for fighting terrorism.
                        5
Schweitzer and Yogev

However, a careful examination of the terror fighting strategy, and especially the operational conduct of
the United States, indicates that the combination of technology and human resources, along with actions
by armed unmanned aerial vehicles, has allowed the Americans to carry out effective targeted attacks
within the territories in which their ground forces’ freedom of movement is limited. In this way, the United
States and its allies have succeeded in killing or capturing the commanders of the special al-Qaeda unit
that is responsible for carrying out terror attacks abroad. They have also been able to expel many
additional senior military commanders and most of the senior activists of al-Qaeda and its main affiliates
in the Taliban and other terrorist organizations and networks that operate in the Afghanistan-Pakistan
sector. At the same time, the United States and its allies have succeeded in foiling most of the attempted
terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda and global jihad activists. In spite of the protests heard recently, mostly in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, against the aerial killings because of the harm done to uninvolved civilians –
harm caused both by the terrorist organizations’ deliberate custom of taking shelter among a civilian
population, and by human error – the United States, which is leading the struggle against al-Qaeda and
its affiliates, has unmistakably and publicly adopted this pattern of action and is in particular implementing
it in the sub-conventional battles underway in these theaters.
Next, eliminating certain terrorists does actually affect the cohesiveness of the terrorists’ community.
        6
Byman

Contrary to popular myth, the number of skilled terrorists is quite limited. Bomb makers, terrorism trainers,
forgers, recruiters, and terrorist leaders are scarce; they need many months, if not years, to gain
enough expertise to be effective. When these individuals are arrested or killed, their organizations are


____________________________
4. Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen, Prof.’s Philosophy Bellarmine and St. John’s, 1981,
Reading Nozick, p. 244-245
             5. Yoram Schweitzer and Einav Yogev, The United States and the Policy of Targeted
                                                                                                           15
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                     Baca/Veeder
Killing, Right Side News, June 25, 2011,
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011062513906/world/terrorism/the-united-states-and-the-policy-of-
targeted-killing.html
6. Daniel Byman, Ph.D in Political Science, Director for Security Studies Program and for Peace and
Security Studies @ Georgetown, “Foreign Affairs volume 85 no. 2” 2006, p.103-4
disrupted. The groups may still be able to attract recruits, but lacking expertise, these new recruits will not
pose the same kind of threat.

Consequently, targeting specific members reduces the effectiveness of terrorists as a whole.
       7
Byman writes,

The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) reports that in 2005, only 21 Israeli
civilians died at the hands of Hamas—down from 67 in 2004, 45 in 2003, 185 in 2002, and 75 in 2001.
Figures for deaths of Israeli soldiers show a comparable decline. This drop-off occurred partly because
Israel’s targeted killings have shattered Palestinian terrorist groups and made it difficult for them to
conduct effective operations. Consider the lethality rate of Hamas attacks since the start of the second
intifada. The number of Hamas attacks grew steadily as the intifada progressed, even as Israel eliminated
Hamas members: there were 19 attacks in 2001, 34 in 2002, 46 in 2003, 202 in 2004, and 179 in 2005
(most in the first half of that year, before a tentative cease-fire took hold). But as the number of attacks
grew, the number of Israeli deaths they caused plunged, suggesting that the attacks themselves became
far less effective. The lethality rate rose from 3.9 deaths per attack in 2001 to 5.4 in 2002, its highest point.
Then, in 2003 the rate began to fall, dropping to 0.98 deaths per attack that year, 0.33 in 2004, and 0.11
in 2005.

What makes these statistics important, is the current state of terrorism itself.
           8
Alexander states,

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically
that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of
the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for
decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic
challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001,
Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating
blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite
the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second
intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive
diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire
arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries
affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are
many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's
expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double
standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist
propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have
introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The
internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age
of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications
concerning national, regional and global security concerns.

It appears that terrorists, in general, have lost political aim. By committing bloody, malicious acts of
violence against others, they are ultimately driving away support and creating a frightening image of
themselves. With no desire to further their standing as a political entity, and a seeming carelessness for
any type of morality or rationality, terrorists are a frightening enemy who are more than eager to instill fear
and death unto the people of the world. Then, unsurprisingly:




                                                                                                             16
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                        Baca/Veeder



_________________________________
7. Daniel Byman, Ph.D in Political Science, Director for Security Studies Program and for Peace and
Security Studies @ Georgetown, “Foreign Affairs volume 85 no. 2” 2006, p.103
8. Yonah Alexander, professor and director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Aug. 28, 2003,
Washington Times
       9
Bohon writes,

The official report from a blue-ribbon panel warns that terrorists with weapons of massive destruction
(WMD) are likely to attack somewhere in the world in the next three years, and the United States could be
a prime target. According to the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Proliferation and Terrorism, the likelihood is high that by 2013 terrorists will use WMDs in an attack
somewhere in the world, and while several nations with terrorist ties are now in a race to produce nuclear
weapons, the commission’s report says that an attack using biological weapons is the more likely
scenario, with potentially devastating consequences. Among its recommendations, the commission said
it believes that “the U.S. government needs to move more aggressively to limit the proliferation of
biological weapons and reduce the prospect of a bio-terror attack.” The commission, co-chaired by
former U.S. Senators Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Jim Talent (R-Mo.), originally reported its findings in
December 2008. During a June 10 press conference to announce legislation aimed at addressing
dangers from terrorism, members of the commission joined with members of the House Homeland
Security Committee to address the commission’s findings. “The consequences of a biological attack are
almost beyond comprehension,” said former Senator Graham. “It would be 9/11 times ten or a hundred in
terms of the number of people who would be killed.” Noting the millions of Americans who died as a result
of the epidemic flu virus of 1918, Graham predicted that a lab-generated biological agent in the hands of
terrorists could prove far worse. “Today it is still in the laboratory,” he said, “but if it should get out and into
the hands of scientists who knew how to use it for a violent purpose, we could have multiple times the 40
million people who were killed 100 years ago.” In December 2008, at the same time the commission
presented its findings, former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell offered a similar
assessment of the likelihood of a biological attack, telling a Harvard University audience, “With weapons
of mass destruction that could result in the death of many people — chemical, biological, nuclear — we
assess biological as the more likely,” adding that “it’s better than an even chance in the next five years
that an attack by one of those weapons systems will be conducted in some place on the globe.” While
emphasizing the likely scenario of a biological attack, the commission also warned of the danger that
exists of nuclear attacks, and cited efforts by both Iran and North Korea to produce a nuclear weapon. It
also cited the specific danger that Pakistan poses to the United States, warning that while the country is
officially an ally of the United States, “the next terrorist attack against the United States is likely to
originate from within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas” of Pakistan, which has been identified as a
haven for terrorists. “Were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would
intersect in Pakistan,” the report stated. Said Graham, “We think time is not our ally,” warning that the
United States “needs to move with a sense of urgency.”

Thus, I affirm




                                                                                                                17
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                Baca/Veeder

                                               AUSTIN
I Affirm
As a result The Value is Morality implied by the evaluative mechanism of the resolution. While
implementing its use only as a means of preemptive self-defense
Jonathan Ulrich, received his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2005, and his A.B.,
cum laude, from Princeton University in 2002. He works as an associate in the International Arbitration
Group of White & Case, LLP, in Washington, D.C., “The Gloves Were Never On: Defining the President's
Authority to Order Targeted Killing in the War Against Terrorism” 2005
The foregoing examination of the basic requirements of the law of armed conflict reveals, in the words of
one commentator, that "targeted killing is the most natural application of the principles of jus in
bello in wars against terror." n112 The practice of assassination, even when justified by the
exigencies and laws of war, is not often viewed as a morally defensible use of force. And yet, the
comparatively widespread acceptance of the higher combatant deaths and collateral damage associated
with conventional conflict is more at odds with the basic jus in bello precept of limited war: The moral
legitimacy of targeted killing becomes even clearer when compared to the alternative means of
fighting terror - that is, the massive invasion of the community that shelters and supports the
terrorists in an attempt to catch or kill the terrorists and destroy their [*1054] infrastructure...
Hence, targeted killing is the preferable method not only because, on a utilitarian calculation, it saves
lives - a very weighty moral consideration - but also because it is more commensurate with a
fundamental condition of justified self-defense, namely, that those killed are responsible for the threat
posed. n113 Targeted killing preserves not only the lives of civilians caught up in the conflict by
combatants who often refuse to fight in the open, but also those of the troops who must engage
these terrorists. n114 By directing the use of force at only those individuals who threaten U.S. soldiers
and civilians, targeted killing more efficiently destroys the terrorists' ability to wage war and inflict
terror, while ensuring that collateral damage is kept to a minimum. This is the very essence of
limited war as prescribed by jus in bello.
reign policy.
Standard is Preservation of The Quality of Life. States Adherence to protect the lives of its people.
Ultimately its moral obligates states to use targeted killing to uphold its responsibilities.
The preservation of lives outweighs all collateral damage as long as I can prove I’m providing the greatest
amount good doing so.
Contention 1
Targeted Killing allows for preemptive self-defense
Amos Guiora, Visiting Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law; served for
19 years in the Israel Defense Forces, Judge Advocate General Corps (Lt. Col.). The opinions expressed
are the authors alone. Special thanks to research assistant Niki Dorsky and colleagues Jon Leiken and
Marc Stern for their significant contributions to this work. 2005 Writes
Because the fight against terrorism takes place in what has been referred to as the "back alleys
and dark shadows against an unseen enemy," the State, in order to adequately defend itself, must
be able to take the fight to the terrorist before the terrorist takes the fight to it. From experience
gained over the years, it has become clear that the State must be able to act preemptively in order to
either deter terrorists or, at the very least, prevent the terrorist act from taking place. By now, we
have learned the price society pays if it is unable to prevent terrorist acts. The question that must be
answered—both from a legal and policy perspective—is what tools should be given to the State to
combat terrorism? What I term active self-defense would appear to be the most effective tool; that
is, rather than wait for the actual armed attack to “occur” (Article 51), the State must be able to act
anticipatorily (Caroline) against the non-State actor (not considered in Caroline).

Contention 2 New Technology Has forever Impacted warfare
(A)     Drones are substantially effective.
Kalsoom Lakhani, " Drone Attacks: Bombs in The Air Versus Boots on The Ground" July 20, 2009,
Huffington Post, Writes
U.S. intelligence officials have called the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or drones, "their
most effective weapon against Al Qaeda." This belief seems to be manifested in the increased
frequency of drone attacks in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Although the
Bush administration authorized only a handful of such strikes in 2007, the Wall Street Journal reports
there were more than 30 attacks in 2008. So far in 2009, attacks are up 30 percent from last year, with

                                                                                                        18
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                  Baca/Veeder
Newsblogging noting there have been 27 drone attacks, "of which only two occurred before Obama took
office." Obama's administration officials have claimed that drone strikes in Pakistan have killed nine of the
20 top Al Qaeda officials. Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann echoed in an article last month, "It is
possible to say with some certainty that since the summer of 2008, U.S. drones have killed dozens
of lower-ranking militants and at least ten mid-and upper-level leaders within Al Qaeda and the
Taliban."
Also
Greg Bruno, Staff Writer, CFR.org, Council on Foreign Relations, "Raising the Curtain on U.S. Drone
Strikes", 2010, Tells
Unmanned drone strikes are an essential tool for killing terrorists who provide guidance and
operational support for international terrorism. The apparent killing of al-Yazid represents an
important small victory, given his connections to terrorist plots abroad, and his declarations last
summer that al-Qaeda would use nuclear weapons against the United States (RFE/RL). Such
targeted killings, however, are only one element of national power that is part of the Obama
administration's six-month-old Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy.
Since effective results are produced using Drones in Targeted Killing it becomes a necessity as a tool of
foreign policy. Given it stopped the use of a nuclear weapon from being used.

 (B)      Advanced Weapon Technology has forever altering our conception of Warfare Tactics
Alex Roland February 2009
Technology Shapes Warfare Vol. 14, No. Professor of history at Duke University and Nine Emmy Awards
for Excellence in Journalism.
Technology shapes warfare, not war. War is timeless and universal. It has afflicted virtually every
state known to human history. Warfare is the conduct of war. It is the clash of arms or the maneuver of
armed forces in the field. It entails what military professionals call operations, whether or not the opposing
forces actually unleash their organized violence on one another. War is a condition in which a state might
find itself; warfare is a physical activity conducted by armed forces in the context of war. Of course, many
kinds of group violence, from gang fights to terrorism, might display some or all of the characteristics of
warfare without rising to this definition of war, but more often than not these violent conflicts use
instruments of war. To understand the technology of warfare is to understand the technology of most
public violence.
Wording is also important in articulating exactly what impact technology has on warfare. A number of
verbs suggest themselves. Technology defines, governs, or circumscribes warfare. It sets the stage for
warfare. It is the instrumentality of warfare.
The most important verb describing the impact of technology on warfare is that it changes warfare.
Technology has been the primary source of military innovation throughout history. It drives
changes in warfare more than any other factor. Consider a simple thought experiment. Sun Tzu and
Alexander the Great are brought back to life and assigned to lead coalition forces in Afghanistan in 2008.
These near contemporaries from the fourth century BCE would understand almost everything they would
need to know. Alexander actually fought in Afghanistan, and Sun Tzu (if such a person really existed)
fought in comparably mountainous terrain in China.[2] Both were masters of strategy and tactics. What
came to be called the “principles of war” are simply the tacit knowledge that all successful commanders
throughout history have carried around in their bank of experience: an understanding of intelligence,
surprise, maneuver, command and control, concentration of force, unity of command, terrain, etc. Even
Clausewitz’s seminal contributions to military art and science—chance, violence, the “fog of war,” and
“friction”—were concepts that Alexander and Sun Tzu knew by different names.
…….The more modern, or postmodern, the warfare becomes, the more the generalization holds
true. Technology defines warfare. Air warfare was not even possible before the twentieth century, save
for the vulnerable and inefficient reconnaissance balloons that were pioneered in Europe and America in
the nineteenth century. In the twenty-first century, air warfare ranges from strategic bombing to close
air support of ground troops to dog fights for air superiority to pilotless drones that carry the eyes
and ears, and sometimes the ordnance, of operators hundreds, even thousands, of miles away.
The U.S. boasts a missile defense installation that can stop the unstoppable, an intercontinental ballistic
missile. Space-faring nations flirt with anti-satellite weapons launched from earth and even the prospect
of space-based weapons to fight one another and threaten the earth below. Air warfare differs from naval
warfare, not because the strategy and tactics of conflict in those realms differs, but because planes differ
from ships. And, of course, both differ from tanks and rockets and satellites. Each technology shapes,
defines, circumscribes, and governs a new kind of warfare.
                                                                                                          19
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                    Baca/Veeder

We need to move towards Targeted Killing as a new foreign policy because time has changed and
technologies deliver better solutions to deal with conflicts.
As A Review States will implicate the exercise Targeted Killing as a foreign policy when associated
threats to National Security arise as an act of self defense. This allows for distinctive opportunities to be
implemented to aid in decreasing and resolving conflicts occurring
We need act using the most moral option that being Targeted Killing because it significantly reduces the
threat that millions of lives can be at stake. States now have the moral obligation to protect its self from
Terrorism
Reason why we should use targeted killing as a foreign policy.
Preemptive strategies that normally wouldn’t be available
A new policy need to be implemented due to New Weapon Technological
It proves effective both stopping and deterring massive losses.
Its adaptive to new technological strategies.




__________________________
9. Dave Bohon, Government Panel Predicts WMD Attack by 2013, New American, 6/ 15/10,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3788-government-panel-predicts-wmd-attack-
by-2013]




                                                                                                            20
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                    Baca/Veeder

                                                TABITHA
Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.
I affirm.
Targeted killing is the use of lethal force by a subject of individual nations that is directed against an
individually selected person who is not in custody by the definition of the Oxford law Journal. It has
developed the specific response to be an aim at terrorists. The few countries that do not follow this
accustomed policy tool are unnecessary to mention. For the observation of this debate round we are
inclined to look toward terrorist as being the prime subjects of the targeted kills.
With the term of morally permissible in the resolution we can see that the Value is Morality.
Life is the prerequisite to all other value.

Uyl 81’

In so far as one chooses, regardless of the choice, one choose (value) man's life. It makes no sense to
value some X without also valuing that which makes the valuing of X possible ~:notice that this is different
from saying "that which makes X possible"). If one lets X be equivalent to "death" or "the greatest
happiness for the greatest number," one is able to have such a valuation only because of the precondition
of being a living being. Given that life is a necessary condition for valuation, there is no other way we can
value something without also (implicitly at least) valuing that which makes valuation possible.
Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen, Prof.’s Philosophy Bellarmine and St. John’s, 1981, Reading
Nozick, p. 245

Life is the end toward which all purposeful action is directed.
Rasmussen 81’

Why should this be the standard for moral evaluation? Why must this be the ultimate moral value? Why
not "death" or "the greatest happiness for the greatest number"? Man's life must be the standard for
judging moral value because this is the end toward which all goal-directed action (in this case purposive
action) is directed, and we have already shown why goal-directed behavior depends on life. Indeed, one
cannot make a choice without implicitly choosing life as the end.
Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen, Prof.’s Philosophy Bellarmine and St. John’s, 1981, Reading
Nozick, p. 244-245

There for we are forced to presume that the standard will be utilitarianism. Saving the greatest number
of people leads to the balance of humanity and keeping the fighting more moral then as of present with
the loss of civilians everyday under the war and the terrorist attacks. The more successful targets killed
the less deaths and a better advantage.

1A. Targeted killings are a vital tool in the war against terrorism

Stevenson 09’

Accordingly, Washington might continue its current policy of eliminating al-Qaeda's leadership
through targeted killing. Although it is a controversial policy, the Obama administration's position in the
freighted domestic policy debate on the nature of counter-terrorism is entirely consistent with it. Despite
its declared post-11 September national security policy, which acknowledged roles for both law
enforcement and military force in combating terrorism, in practice the Bush administration gave short
shrift to law enforcement and strongly favoured military measures. Obama, both during the presidential
campaign and after assuming office, decried what he and others viewed as the excessive militarisation of
counter-terrorism in practice, and endorsed a more fluid, open-minded and pragmatic approach. While he
would prefer to fight transnational terrorists with law-enforcement tools, he understood that that could not
always be done effectively. In particular, he realised that the United States could not, practically speaking,
dispatch FBI special agents to Pakistan's anarchical tribal areas and other ungoverned spaces in an
unmarked Ford Crown Victoria to arrest al-Qaeda suspects and bring them back to federal district court in
Washington for trial, so measures like targeted killing from drones were needed. Thus, Obama
continued and in fact ramped up the targeted killing policy when he became president. The new
president confirmed his instrumental view of counter-terrorism in an impassioned but grounded May 2009

                                                                                                             21
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                     Baca/Veeder
speech, in which he stated for the record that the counter-terrorism tool chosen should fit the particular
circumstances. Though he nodded clearly to the preferred status of the lawenforcement approach in
focusing on closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and ending the use of so-called enhanced
interrogation techniques, he also argued more generally for 'strategically applying our power' as well as
our principles, and doing so 'pragmatically'. The president further noted that 'absolutists' on the 'national
security' and the 'law enforcement' side of the counter-terrorism debate were both wrong, and endorsed a
middle course of 'common sense'.12 One key implication of the speech was that re-orientating American
counter-terrorism policy away from the use of military force would render Islamist militancy more
containable by demonstrating US restraint and emphasising American respect for the rule of law. The
other, though, was that military force remained indispensable in certain circumstances. It does appear
that targeted killing, while only an operational tool and not a strategic solution in itself, can help
manage a terrorist threat.13 Open-source information indicates that the recent US campaign in
Pakistan, in particular, has been effective. Over the past 18 months or so, the United States has used
two related types of unmanned aerial vehicles, the Predator and the faster, higheraltitude Reaper,
which is capable of carrying two Hellfire anti-tank missiles and precision-guided bombs, to attack
individuals and safe houses, eliminating about a dozen key al-Qaeda operatives and dozens more
other militants. There were 36 such attacks in 2008 and about 20 in the first eight months of 2009. As of
the end of August 2009, they had eliminated Abu Jihad al-Masri, al-Qaeda's intelligence chief; Khalid
Habib, head of its Pakistan operations and fourth in the chain of command overall; Abu Khabab al-
Masri, the group's ranking explosives expert; and Abu Laith al-Libi, al-Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan.
One of the missiles killed Pakistan Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud in August.14 Obama continued
and in fact ramped up the targeted killing policy The success of the air-strikes has resulted from
improved technical and human intelligence on al-Qaeda operations in the border area. The logic of
the strategy is to make it increasingly difficult for al-Qaeda to repopulate its command structure,
and US officials believe the programme has produced the broadest and deepest impact on al-Qaeda
senior leadership in several years. Continued success could yield the practical neutralisation of
al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Bureaucratically, the Obama administration has already set the table for adopting
this strategy: for FY 2010, it has requested $79.7m for Hellfire missiles and $489.4m for 24 Reapers,
nearly doubling the 2009 number.
Jonathan Stevenson, Editor of Strategic Survey and Senior Fellow for Counterterrorism at the
International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. Steven Simon, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern
Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Afghanistan: How Much is Enough?” Accessed from
“Survival”, Volume 51, Issue 5 October 2009 , pages 47 – 67

The targeted killing program has drones that are precise when killing the targets. The air strikes are
successful and provide a substantial set back that terrorist may go neutral.
It is empirically proven that targeted killing substantially reduces the effectiveness of terrorist operations
as well as the lethality of the attacks.

Daniel Byman, Ph.D in Political Science, Director for Security Studies Program and for Peace and
Security Studies @ Georgetown, “Foreign Affairs volume 85 no. 2” 2006, p.103

The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) reports that in 2005, only 21 Israeli
civilians died at the hands of Hamas—down from 67 in 2004, 45 in 2003, 185 in 2002, and 75 in 2001.
Figures for deaths of Israeli soldiers show a comparable decline. This drop-off occurred partly because
Israel’s targeted killings have shattered Palestinian terrorist groups and made it difficult for them to
conduct effective operations. Consider the lethality rate of Hamas attacks since the start of the second
intifada. The number of Hamas attacks grew steadily as the intifada progressed, even as Israel eliminated
Hamas members: there were 19 attacks in 2001, 34 in 2002, 46 in 2003, 202 in 2004, and 179 in 2005
(most in the first half of that year, before a tentative cease-fire took hold). But as the number of attacks
grew, the number of Israeli deaths they caused plunged, suggesting that the attacks themselves became
far less effective. The lethality rate rose from 3.9 deaths per attack in 2001 to 5.4 in 2002, its highest point.
Then, in 2003 the rate began to fall, dropping to 0.98 deaths per attack that year, 0.33 in 2004, and 0.11
in 2005.
Therefore this proves that Targeted Killing is effective in the help of the war against terrorism as well as
substantially reducing the number of deaths of innocent civilians. Further proving that the standard of
utilitarianism.

                                                                                                             22
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                    Baca/Veeder
A. Terrorism will go nuclear and cause extinction.

Alexander 03’

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically
that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and
implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States
and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a
critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on
September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists
striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel
and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism
triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide
attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now
revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of
other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist
"surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that
contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of
politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by
terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary
terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional
threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make
it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and
cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.
Yonah Alexander, professor and director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Aug. 28, 2003,
Washington Times
The long term results are far worse than the act of target killing.

B. We must assess the long-term results – assassinating leaders is critical to save lives for the future

Statman 03’

First, in the war against terror, just like in the war against the mafia, what counts are the long-term
results, not the immediate ones. In the short run, killing terrorists might be followed by acts of
revenge, but, in the long run, there is good reason to think that such killing will weaken the terror
organizations, cause demoralization among their members, limit their movements, etc. The
personal charisma or professional skills of some individuals are crucial to the success of the
organizations they lead, and this is especially true with terror organizations that operate
underground and with no clear institutional structure. It is reasonable to assume that killing such
individuals will gradually make it harder for the terror machinery to operate.
Daniel Statman, Department of Philosophy, University of Haifa, “The Morality of Assassination: A reply to
Gross”, Political Studies (2003) vol. 51. pp. 775-779, Ebsco
 Assassinating leaders is critical to save lives for the future.
Targeted Killing is justified within the value of morality as is pursuing the tact of utilitarianism while
building up to the neutralization of the terrorist community. With the risk gone the impacts are eliminated.
The standard is upheld by saving the most lives in the long run.




                                                                                                             23
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                                                                     Baca/Veeder

                                                                            BLAKE
                                                                    Affirmative Case
I affirm.
                        Value: My value in today’s debate will be that of Morality
                Thus, because the resolution is asking about permissibility not obligation it is the
          official burden of the affirmative to prove that targeted killing meets moral maxims.
          Therefore the Standard is Utilitarianism. Which preserves the greater good for the
                 greatest amount of people, and by doing this it’ll help to save more lives.
                                         Contention 1: Terrorism
                                      a. TKs cripple terrorist plots.

Yoram Schweitzer and Einav Yogev, The United States and the Policy of Targeted Killing,
Right Side News, June 25, 2011,
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011062513906/world/terrorism/the-united-states-
and-the-policy-of-targeted-killing.html

                  However, a careful examination of the terror fighting strategy, and especially the operational conduct of the United
States, indicates that the combination of technology and human resources, along with actions by armed unmanned aerial vehicles, has allowed
the Americans to carry out effective targeted attacks within the territories in which their
ground forces’ freedom of movement is limited. In this way, the United States and its allies have
succeeded in killing or capturing the commanders of the special al-Qaeda unit that is
responsible for carrying out terror attacks abroad. They have also been able to expel many
additional senior military commanders and most of the senior activists of al-Qaeda and its
main affiliates in the Taliban and other terrorist organizations and networks that operate
in the Afghanistan-Pakistan sector. At the same time, the United States and its allies have succeeded
in foiling most of the attempted terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda and global jihad activists. In
spite of the protests heard recently, mostly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, against the aerial killings because of the harm done to uninvolved civilians – harm caused both
by the terrorist organizations’ deliberate custom of taking shelter among a civilian population, and by human error – the United States, which is leading the

struggle against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, has unmistakably and publicly adopted this
pattern of action and is in particular implementing it in the sub-conventional battles
underway in these theaters.

             b. Targeted killings are key to deterring terrorists and stopping attacks.

Gary Solis; 2006–2007 Scholar in Residence at the Library of Congress, a U.S. Military
Academy professor of law (retired), and an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown
University Law Center; TARGETED KILLING AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT; Naval
War College Review, Spring 2007, Vol. 60, No. 2

        Killing senior terrorists, expert bomb makers, and those who provide philosophical
guidance for terrorists may spare countless noncombatant victims while, at the same time, forgoing
risk to friendly combatant forces. A successful targeted killing removes a dangerous enemy
from the battlefield and deprives the foe of his leadership, guidance, and experience. The
targeted killing of terrorist leader’s leaves subordinates confused and in disarray, however temporarily.
Successors will feel trepidation, knowing they too may be in the enemy’s sights. Targeted
killing unbalances terrorist organizations, making them concerned with protecting their
own membership and diverting them from their goals.
                                                                                                    24
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                                                                         Baca/Veeder



                                                  c. Drones keep terrorists on the run

Peter Bergen, Katherine Tiedemann, New America Foundation "The Drone War" June 3,
2009, The New Republic,
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/drone_war_13672

Officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations have been leery of discussing the highly classified drone
program on the record, but a window into their thinking was provided by the remarks of then-CIA director Michael Hayden on November 13, 2008, as the drone program was in full
swing. "By making a safe haven feel less safe, we keep Al Qaeda guessing. We make them doubt

their allies; question their methods, their plans, even their priorities," he explained. Hayden went on to say that the
key outcome of the drone attacks was that" we force them to spend more time and
resources on self-preservation, and that distracts them, at least partially and at least for a time, from laying the
groundwork for the next attack." This strategy seems to have worked, at least in terms of
the ability of Al Qaeda and other FATA-based militant groups to plan or carry out attacks in
the West. Since the summer of 2008, law-enforcement authorities have uncovered no
serious plots against U.S. or European targets that have been traceable back to Pakistan's
tribal regions.


*Warrant and Impact:
      Terrorism affects many countries and with TK’s it helps us to deter and begin to fight
back against the terrorists by taking out there main source. Terrorism is one of the core
reasons that Targeted Killing is used; terrorists are not only a threat to the U.S. but other
countries around the world.

                                                            Contention 2: Self Defense

                         a. Targeted killing is defense of state and innocent citizens.

Amos Guiora1, Visiting Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of
Law; served for 19 years in the Israel Defense Forces, Judge Advocate General Corps (Lt.
Col.). The opinions expressed are the authors alone. Special thanks to research assistant
Niki Dorsky and colleagues Jon Leiken and Marc Stern for their significant contributions to
this work. 2005

        Active self-defense (in the form of targeted killing), if properly executed, not only enables the State
to more effectively protect itself within a legal context but also leads to minimizing the loss of innocent
civilians caught between the terrorists (who regularly violate international law by using innocents as human shields) and the State. “(I)n time of war or
armed conflict innocents always become casualties. It is precisely because targeted killing,
when carried out correctly, minimizes such casualties that it is a preferable option to
bombing or large military sweeps that do far more harm to genuine noncombatants.”




                            b. States have a right to targeted killings for self-defense.
                                                                                                                                                                         25
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                                                                Baca/Veeder

Amos Guiora2, Visiting Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of
Law; served for 19 years in the Israel Defense Forces, Judge Advocate General Corps (Lt.
Col.). The opinions expressed are the authors alone. Special thanks to research assistant
Niki Dorsky and colleagues Jon Leiken and Marc Stern for their significant contributions to
this work. 2005

                Because the fight against terrorism takes place in what has been referred to as the
"back alleys and dark shadows against an unseen enemy," the State, in order to adequately
defend itself, must be able to take the fight to the terrorist before the terrorist takes the
fight to it. From experience gained over the years, it has become clear that the State must be able to act preemptively in order to
either deter terrorists or, at the very least, prevent the terrorist act from taking place. By now, we
have learned the price society pays if it is unable to prevent terrorist acts. The question that must be answered—both from a legal and policy perspective—is

what tools should be given to the State to combat terrorism? What I term active self-
defense would appear to be the most effective tool; that is, rather than wait for the actual
armed attack to “occur” (Article 51), the State must be able to act anticipatorily (Caroline) against the
non-State actor (not considered in Caroline).

              c. A state acting outside of its defense of self is rationally contradictory.

David P. Gauthier, Morals by Agreement. Oxfordshire: Clarendon, 1986. Print.

The theory of rational choice also treats practical reason as strictly instrumental. This is not quite
implicit in the identification of rationality with maximization, for as we have noted, one might suppose that the quantity to be maximized was not

a measure of but a standard for preference, a standard objectively inherent in states of
affairs whose apprehension involves an exercise of reason. On such a view reason would not be merely instrumental, but
would also be concerned with the ends of action. But in identifying rationality with the maximization of a measure of

preference, the theory of rational choice, disclaims all concern with the ends of action. Ends may be inferred from individual preferences; if
the relationships among these preferences, and the manner in which they are held, satisfy
the conditions of rational choice, then the theory accepts whatever ends they imply. An
instrumental conception of rationality is thus linked to the identification of value with
utility. Were value a standard, then reason might have a role in determining this standard which would go beyond mere maximization. Were there neither standard nor
measure, then reason would have no practical role whatsoever; there would be nothing to maximize. The theory of rational choice sets its

course between the dogmatism of assuming a standard for preference and the skepticism
of denying a measure of preference. Since our aim is to have rational choice take moral theory in tow, we shall want to be sure that this course
avoids shipwreck.




*Warrant and Impact:
        Acting in self-defense against terrorism makes it so everyone can better protect
themselves and by using drones it helps to minimize the loss of innocent civilians. Instead
of sitting around and waiting for an attack to happen we are able to take action against
terrorists.

                                                                                                                                                              26
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases   Baca/Veeder
Thus, I must affirm




                                     27
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                   Baca/Veeder

                                                    TIM
I affirm
The resolution is a question of moral permissibility for countries to use TK’s, so then the value is morality.
O1 Governments have an obligation to their civilians to protect their well being from the things that
can/will harm that well being. This can also include but is not limited to their happiness/ mental well being.
Since the resolution is a question of whether it is or it isn’t moral for a government to use targeted killing
and a government has an obligation to its civilians by social contract, the standard is adhering to social
contract.
C1a      Terrorism has kill thousands

By Robert Rivas and Robert Windrem Worldwide terrorism-related deaths on the rise NBC News findings
run counter to recent Bush administration claims
NBC News updated 9/2/2004 10:43:05 AM ET http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/

NBC News findings run counter to recent Bush administration claims Since Sept. 11, 2001, according to
the analysis, around 1,500 have died in terrorist attacks in Iraq, nearly 700 in Russia, more than 350 have
died in Israel, around 200 in Spain and more than 100 in the Philippines. The numbers sometimes are
imprecise because of the nature of the attacks, which leave many missing.

C1b        TKs cripple terrorist plots.
Yoram Schweitzer and Einav Yogev, The United States and the Policy of Targeted Killing, Right Side
News, June 25, 2011, http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011062513906/world/terrorism/the-united-states-
and-the-policy-of-targeted-killing.html
However, a careful examination of the terror fighting strategy, and especially the operational conduct of
the United States, indicates that the combination of technology and human resources, along with actions
by armed unmanned aerial vehicles, has allowed the Americans to carry out effective targeted attacks
within the territories in which their ground forces’ freedom of movement is limited. In this way, the United
States and its allies have succeeded in killing or capturing the commanders of the special al-Qaeda unit
that is responsible for carrying out terror attacks abroad. They have also been able to expel many
additional senior military commanders and most of the senior activists of al-Qaeda and its main affiliates
in the Taliban and other terrorist organizations and networks that operate in the Afghanistan-Pakistan
sector. At the same time, the United States and its allies have succeeded in foiling most of the attempted
terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda and global jihad activists. In spite of the protests heard recently, mostly in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, against the aerial killings because of the harm done to uninvolved civilians –
harm caused both by the terrorist organizations’ deliberate custom of taking shelter among a civilian
population, and by human error – the United States, which is leading the struggle against al-Qaeda and
its affiliates, has unmistakably and publicly adopted this pattern of action and is in particular implementing
it in the sub-conventional battles underway in these theaters.
If governments can stop attacks such as 9-11 and protect their citizens who would have had their health
lowered mental and physical will be safe and the government will up hold their social contract to them.
C1c TKs cripple terrorist organizations
Daniel L. Byman, Professor at Georgetown University and Research Director of the Saban Center at
Brookings Institution, The Targeted Killings Debate, Expert Roundup, Council on Foreign Relations, June
8, 2011, http://www.cfr.org/international-peace-and-security/targeted-killings-debate/p25230
Killing terrorist leaders and key lieutenants not only brings justice to our enemies, but can devastate the
group in question. Killing a leader like bin Laden removes a charismatic yet pragmatic leader--one who
succeeded in transforming a small group into a household name and proved time and again he could
attract recruits and funding. His replacement, be it Ayman al-Zawahiri or another senior al-Qaeda figure,
may prove less charismatic and less able to unify this fissiparous movement. Some existing affiliates and
cells may split off, and the core might be eclipsed by rivals. Less dramatic, but no less important, is a
campaign against lieutenants and bomb-makers, passport-forgers, travel-facilitators, and others whose
skills cannot easily be replaced--essentially what the United States has been doing since the end of the
Bush administration in Pakistan through drone strikes. When these individuals are hit, and hit again, it is
possible to exhaust the terrorist group's bench. During the Second Intifada, Israel found that initial strikes
against Palestinian cell leaders and bomb-makers had only a limited impact on the terrorist groups it
faced, as eager replacements quickly took over. Eventually however, there was a bottom to the barrel
and less skilled, less motivated people took over. An often-neglected impact of killing terrorist leaders is

                                                                                                           28
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                    Baca/Veeder
on what they and their group do not do. When a campaign against lieutenants is in full-gear, they must
spend much of their time in hiding or moving from place to place. Communicating by phone becomes
risky, and the circle of trust shrinks, making meetings or large-scale training harder to pull off. The hunt for
spies within can become all-consuming. In the end, leaders are less able to lead, and the group's
cohesion and strategic direction suffer.
If countries weaken the structure of the building that is terrorism they will be able to take down the entire
building with one hard fatal swoop.


C2a It’s war, people die – TKs minimize the harms of war

KalsoomLakhani, " Drone Attacks: Bombs in The Air Versus Boots on The Ground" July 20, 2009,
Huffington Post,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kalsoom-lakhani/drone-attacks-bombs-in-
th_b_241439.html
Why does the United States continue to champion such a policy? Upon studying numerous articles
and resources, the answer seems to be: because it is their best worst option. According to an article in
last week's Wall Street Journal, "Unlike fighter jets or cruise missiles, Predators can loiter over their
targets for more than 20 hours, take photos in which men, women and children can be clearly
distinguished(burqas can be visible from 20,000 feet) and deliver laser-guided munitions with low
explosive yields. This minimizes the risks of the 'collateral damage' that often comes from 500-pound
bombs."
The plain and simple fact is that this is war. People will die “good” or “bad”. The thing we truly need to
look at is what can countries due to adhere to their social contract that they have with their citizens. The
only way they do this is if they are allowed to use targeted killing. Countries need to be able to bring as
many troops home as they can as soon as they can along with keep the population there safe.
C3a      Terrorism will go nuclear and cause extinction.

Yonah Alexander, professor and director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Aug. 28, 2003,
Washington Times
Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of
violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization
and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super
Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications
concerning national, regional and global security concerns.
Terrorist are getting smart and strong. If countries don’t act know they will all DIE all the civilian will die
the country will fail at its social contract and morality will be lost.




                                                                                                            29
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                   Baca/Veeder

                                               ANTHONY
Resolution: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool
I affirm todays resolution
my value is morality
Saul D. Ailinski, Activist, Prof, Social Organizer with Int'l Fame, Founder of Industrial Areas Foundation,
Rules for Radicals, 1971, p. 24-7

The practical revolutionary will understand Geothe's "conscience is the virtue of observers and not of
agents of action in action one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with
one’s individual conscience and the good of [humankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action
is for mass salvation and not for the individual's personal salvation. He [or she1 who sacrifices the mass
good for his personal conscience has peculiar conception of "personal salvation"; he doesn't care enough
for people to be "corrupted" for them. The people [men] who pile up the heaps of discussion and literature
on the ethics of means and ends-which with rare exception is conspicuous for its sterility-rarely write
about their won experiences in the perpetual struggle of life and change. They are strangers, moreover,
to the burdens and problems of operational responsibility and the unceasing pressure for immediate
decisions. They are passionately committed to a mystical objectivity where passions are suspect. They
assume a nonexistent situation where men dispassionately and with reason draw and devise means and
ends as if studying a navigational chart on land. They can be recognized by one of two verbal brands;
"We agree with the ends but not the means," or "This is not the time." The means-and- end moralists or
non-doers always wind up on their ends without any means. The means-and- 'ends moralists, constantly
obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search
themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive-but real-allies of the Haves. They
are the ones Jacques Maritain referred to in his statement, "The fear of soiling ourselves by entering the
context of history is not virtue, but a way of escaping virtue." These non-doers were the ones who chose
not to fight the Nazis in the only way they could have been fought; they were the ones who drew their
window blinds to shut out the shameful spectacle of Jews and political prisoners being dragged through
the streets; they were the ones who privately deplored the horror of it all-and did nothing. This is the nadir
of immorality. The most unethical of all means is the nonuse of any means.

Thus the standard for this round is utilitarianism.
C1: DIPLOMACY fails
Victor D. Comras is a leading expert on international sanctions and the global effort to combat terrorism
and money laundering. A seasoned U.S. career diplomat, Comras frequently testifies before Congress on
these issues and is a regular commentator on radio and television. His articles have appeared in
numerous online journals and in the Washington Post, the Financial Times, and other publications. He is
also a contributor to Terrorism Financing and State Responses: A Comparative Perspective (2007). He
resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

There have been numerous attempts to engage the United Nations in a meaningful campaign against
state-supported and other terrorist activities. But the inherently political nature of terrorism has made it
exceedingly difficult to gain global consensus on who even qualifies as a terrorist, much less agreement
on counterterrorism measures to pursue.

The rise of al Qaeda, the events of 9/11, the Madrid train bombing, and the London mass transit
bombings provided the international community and United Nations with new impetus to respond to
terrorism. Although a series of international conventions were adopted and a short-lived independent
monitoring group was established, the strategy that UN secretary general Kofi Annan proposed to the
General Assembly in May 2006 contains many proposed measures and objectives that remain unfulfilled,
thus rendering the UN virtually impotent against terrorism.

As one of five Security Council–appointed international monitors on the measures being taken against al
Qaeda and the Taliban, Comras had the rare opportunity to observe the UN’s counterterrorism activities.
He delves into the UN’s role in dealing with terrorism, explores the international political realities and
institutional problems that make it difficult for the UN to successfully implement and monitor
counterterrorism measures, and describes both the UN’s successes and failures, ultimately laying out a


                                                                                                           30
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                       Baca/Veeder
case for creating a stronger, more effective UN response. Flawed Diplomacy is an invaluable resource for
anyone interested in the war on terrorism and in gaining knowledge about the UN’s inner workings.

Targeted killing is morally permissible
C2: J.J. Green, " Collateral damage 'acceptable' when terrorists targeted" March 9, 2010, WTOP,
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=778&sid=1907176

In August of last year, Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud was spending a humid night on the roof
of his father-in-law's house in South Waziristan. As he relaxed while his wife massaged his legs to ease
the painful symptoms of diabetes, a launch order was given for a missile aboard a U.S. drone flying high
above in the Afghani sky. In a matter of seconds, the house was reduced to little more than a smoking
pile of rubble. Mehsud was killed. So were his wife and bodyguards. "That's an acceptable price for taking
out a senior leader in the Taliban," says David Rittgers, a former Special Forces operator who has served
three tours in Afghanistan. "I think if we had a chance to kill Adolph Hitler with a drone and Ava
Braun was going to be a part of the collateral damage, I think that would be viewed as
acceptable," Rittgers adds. "There's a strong parallel between that and Baitullah Mehsud." Al-Qaida
has admitted losing two key members in the last three months, suffering significant damage to its
ability to plan and launch terror attacks. Saleh al- Somali, senior external operations planner, and
Abdullah Said, chief of internal operations, were both allegedly killed in separate U.S. drone strikes.
Collateral damage has historically been a major concern for U.S. officials. It remains a prickly issue
today. While eliminating more than a dozen top al-Qaida linked terror targets since 2004, hundreds of
civilians have died in the process. "While the CIA does not comment on allegations of Predator
operations, the tactics and tools we use in the fight against al-Qaida and its violent allies are not
only lawful, they are exceptionally precise and effective," says CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano.
manipulating our adherence to the rule of law." Ralph Peters is more blunt. "We approach war in
terror of lawsuits and criminal charges. Our enemies are enthusiastic killers. Who has the
psychological advantage?"
C3: TKs cripple terrorist organizations
Daniel L. Byman, Professor at Georgetown University and Research Director of the Saban Center at
Brookings Institution, The Targeted Killings Debate, Expert Roundup, Council on Foreign Relations, June
8, 2011, http://www.cfr.org/international-peace-and-security/targeted-killings-debate/p25230
Killing terrorist leaders and key lieutenants not only brings justice to our enemies, but can devastate the
group in question. Killing a leader like bin Laden removes a charismatic yet pragmatic leader--one who
succeeded in transforming a small group into a household name and proved time and again he could
attract recruits and funding. His replacement, be it Ayman al-Zawahiri or another senior al-Qaeda figure,
may prove less charismatic and less able to unify this fissiparous movement. Some existing affiliates and
cells may split off, and the core might be eclipsed by rivals. Less dramatic, but no less important, is a
campaign against lieutenants and bomb-makers, passport-forgers, travel-facilitators, and others whose
skills cannot easily be replaced--essentially what the United States has been doing since the end of the
Bush administration in Pakistan through drone strikes. When these individuals are hit, and hit again, it is
possible to exhaust the terrorist group's bench. During the Second Intifada, Israel found that initial strikes
against Palestinian cell leaders and bomb-makers had only a limited impact on the terrorist groups it
faced, as eager replacements quickly took over. Eventually, however, there was a bottom to the barrel
and less skilled, less motivated people took over. An often-neglected impact of killing terrorist leaders is
on what they and their group do not do. When a campaign against lieutenants is in full-gear, they must
spend much of their time in hiding or moving from place to place. Communicating by phone becomes
risky, and the circle of trust shrinks, making meetings or large-scale training harder to pull off. The hunt for
spies within can become all-consuming. In the end, leaders are less able to lead, and the group's
cohesion and strategic direction suffer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer for international law:(only use if the opponent brings this topic up)
Strengthening international law bad—hurt US war on terror efforts

P.W. Singer, Director of the 21st-Century Defense Initiative at Brookings, Wired for War: The Robotics
Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century, 2009, p. 391]

The "soldiers" who respect the laws of war might then be at a disadvantage to the "warriors" and
criminals who do not. It is not merely that the laws and lawyers limit what they can do, but that the
                                                                                                               31
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                  Baca/Veeder
other side knows the limits, and will do everything possible to take advantage. During the Fallujah
fighting in 2004, for example, insurgents knew U.S. forces were prohibited from shooting at
ambulances, so they used them as taxis to carry about fighters and weapons. Such "lawfare,"
describes Major General Dunlap, is perhaps the ultimate misuse
of international law, because it knowingly abuses it. "They are intent on

answer for utilitarianism :Ignoring consequences is immoral - sacrifices others to preserve moral purity. It
is most moral to act to produce the best end regardless of the moral cleanliness of the means.

Answer for defects in drones: The department of defence constantly evaluates and seeks to improve
the performance and security of our various drone systems. As they identify problems, they
correct them as part of a continuous process of seeking to improve capabilities and security."




                                                                                                          32
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                    Baca/Veeder

                                                 DYLAN
I affirm
becuase Targeted killing saves innocent lives
By targeting and killing the specific individuals that are the instigators of terrorist attacks we save the
individuals lives that otherwise would have been killed had the mastermind of the terrorist plot been
allowed to live. Douglas Den Uyl (I’ll) and Douglas Rasmussen, Prof.’s Philosophy Bellarmine and St.
John’s, 1981, Reading Nozick, p. 244
Reads
Rand has spoken of the ultimate end as the standard by which all other ends are evaluated. When the
ends to be evaluated are chosen ones the ultimate end is the standard for moral evaluation. Life as the
sort of thing a living entity is, then, is the ultimate standard of value; and since only human beings are
capable of choosing their ends, it is the life as a human being that is the standard for moral evaluation.
Preservation of life is therefore the criterion that should be used to debate this round.
Contention 1 Targeted killing prevents large scale conflict where many more lives are at stake.
By killing targets critical to the instigation of terrorism with drones or highly trained commandos you can
protect the lives of civilians while also protecting a larger portion of military personnel because you
remove the threat while putting fewer soldiers in the line of fire. Highly trained personnel such as Israel’s
Sareyet Matkal have proven successful in eliminating terrorists without causing collateral damage such as
the hostage rescue of flight 571 in 1972, of the four terrorists involved, two were killed and two were
captured, all of the 90 passengers were rescued alive. This provides an example that highly trained
commandos are capable of storming a small building and destroying the threatening terrorists among
innocent civilians with little to no collateral damage. Drones are also an effective means of targeted killing
while completely removing the risk of soldiers’ lives. The potential risk of collateral damage in using a
drone with explosives is acceptable when you consider the amount of lives at risk should the terrorist be
allowed to live and it also removes all of your own soldiers from the line of fire. The greater amount life is
preserved. The impact is that targeted killing allows the state to remove a threat to save civilian lives while
also removing the risk of most or all of the soldiers’ lives in the conflict depending on the chosen methods.
Contention 2 Targeted Killings stop terrorism in the long run which saves lives of the potential victims of
terrorism.
Prof. Daniel Statman, moral philosopher at the University of Haifa in Israel and author of the books Moral
Dilemmas and Religion and Morality, 2004 States
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.
Killing key figures in a terrorist organization simply cuts the amount of skill and leadership they have
which makes them less effective. The Small burst of retaliatory attacks caused by targeted killings is
acceptable when the long term effects of killing cumulative critical targets is realized, simply put, if a bomb
maker is dead, he can’t make bombs anymore, if a key terror strategist is dead, he can’t plan anymore
attacks, if no more attacks are planned, and no more weapons created, the threat from the terrorist group
ceases to exist thus preserving the lives of the would be targets of the terrorist group.
Contention 3 Targeted Killing kills only those responsible for the threats to the state minimizing collateral
damage and sparing individuals that do not need to be killed to stop terrorism.
Prof. Daniel Statman, moral philosopher at the University of Haifa in Israel and author of the books Moral
Dilemmas and Religion and Morality, States
The moral legitimacy of targeted killing becomes even clearer when compared to the alternative means of
fighting terror—that is, the massive invasion of the community that shelters and supports the terrorists in
an attempt to catch or kill the terrorists and destroy their infrastructure. This mode of operation was
adopted, for example, by the U.S. and Britain in Afghanistan and by Israel in its “Operation Defensive
Shield” carried out after the terrorist Passover massacre in March 2002. While many claim this method to
be morally preferable to targeted killing—likely because it bears more of a resemblance to “real” war—I
believe the opposite to be true. First, invading a civilian area inevitably leads to the deaths and injury of
far more people, mostly innocent people, than careful use of targeted killing. Second, such actions bring

                                                                                                           33
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                  Baca/Veeder
death, misery, and destruction to people who are only minimally involved (if at all) in, or responsible for,
terror or military attacks, whereas with targeted killing, collateral damage is significantly reduced (though
not prevented altogether). Hence, targeted killing is the preferable method not only because, on a
utilitarian calculation, it saves lives—a very weighty moral consideration—but also because it is more
commensurate with a fundamental condition of justified self-defense, namely, that those killed are
responsible for the threat posed. Members of the Hammas in Gaza are far more responsible for the threat
of terror to Israel than their non-activist neighbors are; hence it is preferable from a moral standpoint to
target the former directly rather than invade Gaza and inevitably cause great injury to the latter and
general population.
Targeted killing is the best way to save lives because it eliminates the threat from terrorism without
causing far larger amounts of collateral damage that other methods would, and eliminates only those that
are responsible for the threats, again the small amount of collateral damage caused by targeted killings is
acceptable when the number of lives that are threatened by the terrorist is considered and the far larger
amounts of collateral damage caused by alternative methods is considered.
Thus I affirm.




                                                                                                          34
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                      Baca/Veeder

                                                   EMMA
The VALUE is MORALITY as is consistent with the evaluative term of art, “moral permissibility” in the
resolution. Morality in this case will be defined as the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of
people.
Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen, Prof.’s Philosophy Bellarmine and St. John’s, 1981, Reading
Nozick, p. 244-245

In so far as one chooses, regardless of the choice, one choose (value) man's life. It makes no sense to
value some X without also valuing that which makes the valuing of X possible ~:notice that this is different
from saying "that which makes X possible"). If one lets X be equivalent to "death" or "the greatest
happiness for the greatest number," one is able to have such a valuation only because of the precondition
of being a living being. Given that life is a necessary condition for valuation, there is no other way we can
value something without also valuing that which makes valuation possible.

Thus my Standard is Utilitarianism
C1: targeting terrorist leaders is not only defensible, but actually more ethical than going after rank and
file terrorists or trying to combat terrorism through purely defensive security measures. The rank and file
have far less culpability for terrorist attacks than do their leaders, and killing them is less likely to impair
terrorist operations.
SUB A: Purely defensive measures often impose substantial costs on innocent people and may imperil
civil liberties. Despite the possibility of collateral damage inflicted on civilians whom the terrorist leaders
use as human shields, targeted assassination of terrorist leaders is less likely to harm innocents than
most other strategies for combating terror and more likely to disrupt future terrorist operations.
That does not prove that it should be the only strategy we use, but it does mean that we should reject
condemnations of it as somehow immoral.
SUB B: Targeted killings increase the amount of lives saved and life is the ultimate moral standard
Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen 2, Prof.’s Philosophy Bellarmine and St. John’s, 1981,
Reading Nozick, p. 244-245

Why should this be the standard for moral evaluation? Why must this be the ultimate moral value? Why
not "death" or "the greatest happiness for the greatest number"? Man's life must be the standard for
judging moral value because this is the end toward which all goal-directed action (in this case purposive
action) is directed, and we have already shown why goal-directed behavior depends on life. Indeed, one
cannot make a choice without implicitly choosing life as the end.

Since life is above all other values, and targeted killing is saving the most lives, we MUST vote affirmative
in order to achieve morality.
SUB C: Targeted killing stops terrorism. As I previously stated in my last subpoint, saving lives is above
all the most important thing. If we are stopping terrorism then we increase the amount of lives saved, in
addition to the lives saved from just targeted killing itself.
TKs cripple terrorist organizations
Daniel L. Byman, Professor at Georgetown University and Research Director of the Saban Center at
Brookings Institution, The Targeted Killings Debate, Expert Roundup, Council on Foreign Relations, June
8, 2011, http://www.cfr.org/international-peace-and-security/targeted-killings-debate/p25230
Killing terrorist leaders and key lieutenants not only brings justice to our enemies, but can devastate the
group in question. Killing a leader like bin Laden removes a charismatic yet pragmatic leader--one who
succeeded in transforming a small group into a household name and proved time and again he could
attract recruits and funding. His replacement, be it Ayman al-Zawahiri or another senior al-Qaeda figure,
may prove less charismatic and less able to unify this fissiparous movement. Some existing affiliates and
cells may split off, and the core might be eclipsed by rivals. Less dramatic, but no less important, is a
campaign against lieutenants and bomb-makers, passport-forgers, travel-facilitators, and others whose
skills cannot easily be replaced--essentially what the United States has been doing since the end of the
Bush administration in Pakistan through drone strikes. When these individuals are hit, and hit again, it is
possible to exhaust the terrorist group's bench. During the Second Intifada, Israel found that initial strikes
against Palestinian cell leaders and bomb-makers had only a limited impact on the terrorist groups it
faced, as eager replacements quickly took over. Eventually, however, there was a bottom to the barrel
and less skilled, less motivated people took over. An often-neglected impact of killing terrorist leaders is

                                                                                                               35
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                             Baca/Veeder
on what they and their group do not do. When a campaign against lieutenants is in full-gear, they must
spend much of their time in hiding or moving from place to place. Communicating by phone becomes
risky, and the circle of trust shrinks, making meetings or large-scale training harder to pull off. The hunt for
spies within can become all-consuming. In the end, leaders are less able to lead, and the group's
cohesion and strategic direction suffer.
We must do this because terrorism is such a threat
               1
Bohon writes .
The official report from a blue-ribbon panel warns that terrorists with weapons of massive destruction
(WMD) are likely to attack somewhere in the world in the next three years, and the United States could be
a prime target. According to the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Proliferation and Terrorism, the likelihood is high that by 2013 terrorists will use WMDs in an attack
somewhere in the world, and while several nations with terrorist ties are now in a race to produce nuclear
weapons, the commission’s report says that an attack using biological weapons is the more likely
scenario, with potentially devastating consequences. Among its recommendations, the commission said
it believes that “the U.S. government needs to move more aggressively to limit the proliferation of
biological weapons and reduce the prospect of a bio-terror attack.” The commission, co-chaired by
former U.S. Senators Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Jim Talent (R-Mo.), originally reported its findings in
December 2008. During a June 10 press conference to announce legislation aimed at addressing
dangers from terrorism, members of the commission joined with members of the House Homeland
Security Committee to address the commission’s findings. “The consequences of a biological attack are
almost beyond comprehension,” said former Senator Graham. “It would be 9/11 times ten or a hundred in
terms of the number of people who would be killed.” Noting the millions of Americans who died as a
result
SUB D: Targeted killing is morally permissible as an act of self-defense- And self-defense protects lives
Take, for example, the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden. The US was justified in killing him because he
crossed the boundary (and by doing so surrendering his OWN rights) and we were able to act out in a
form of self-defense. And by doing so, we protect ourselves, the lives of our citizens, and in the end
achieving morality.

the right to self-defense stems from the right to life – we must protect self-defense to protect life.
Shlomit Wallerstein, Lecturer, St. Peter's College, Oxford University. “Justifying the Right to Self-
Defense: A Theory of Forced Consequences” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 4 (Jun., 2005), pp. 999-
1035
Starting from the premise of an absolute unqualified right not to be killed, it follows that self-defense, as a
derivative right, must be an absolute natural right as well. This is so because without an absolute right to
self-defense the right not to be killed can hardly be regarded as a right, as it provides its owner no
effective tools to protect it. Self-defense plays a major role in resisting the direct imminent unjust threat
posed by an aggressor. It also has an addi- tional role in the defense against an indirect threat to
autonomy, a threat that is generated by the fear and instability that the lack of such a right would bring
about. It constitutes one of the basic con- ditions that allow people to live together in society. One of the
rea- sons we value life is because it is a necessary precondition to the possibility of autonomy, of
pursuing various personal and commu- nal goals. Thus, the right to self-defense can be partly explained
by reason of its implications for autonomy. No matter how compre- hensive the rules of a given society
are, there will always be situa- tions where one is unable to turn to the community for help. Unless the
possibility to defend oneself is recognized in these situa- tions, the risks associated with living in a society
would increase. Many people would devote their lives to creating conditions that would ensure their
survival instead of promoting their autonomy in other ways. Given that life is a precondition of (or at any
rate, closely connected to) autonomy, the protection of these two inter- ests is inseparable; even if we
justify the right of self-defense in terms of defending one’s life from an imminent unjust threat, the defense
of life is, inter alia, a defense of autonomy

Using targeted Killing as an act of self-defense is morally permissible and increases the amount
of lives saved in doing so. Thus achieving the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of
people.

1
  Dave Bohon, Government Panel Predicts WMD Attack by 2013, New American, 6/ 15/10,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3788-government-panel-predicts-wmd-attack-by-2013]


                                                                                                               36
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases   Baca/Veeder

Thus I affirm.




                                     37
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                               Baca/Veeder

                                             GURLEEN
I affirm.
The VALUE implied by the evaluative mechanism of the resolution is MORALITY.
The standard is Protection of Life.
Contention 1: Targeted killing is the most efficient method of stopping terrorist.
Gary Solis; 2006–2007 Scholar in Residence at the Library of Congress, a U.S. Military Academy professor
of law (retired), and an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center; TARGETED
KILLING AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT; Naval War College Review, Spring 2007, Vol. 60, No. 2

Killing senior terrorists, expert bomb makers, and those who provide philosophical guidance for
terrorists may spare countless noncombatant victims while, at the same time, forgoing risk to friendly
combatant forces. A successful targeted killing removes a dangerous enemy from the battlefield and
deprives the foe of his leadership, guidance, and experience. The targeted killing of terrorist leaders
leaves subordinates confused and in disarray, however temporarily. Successors will feel trepidation,
knowing they too may be in the enemy’s sights. Targeted killing unbalances terrorist organizations,
making them concerned with protecting their own membership and diverting them from their goals.

Kalsoom Lakhani, " Drone Attacks: Bombs in The Air Versus Boots on The Ground" July 20, 2009,
Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kalsoom-lakhani/drone-attacks-bombs-in-
th_b_241439.html

U.S. intelligence officials have called the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or drones, "their most
effective weapon against Al Qaeda." This belief seems to be manifested in the increased frequency of
drone attacks in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Although the Bush administration
authorized only a handful of such strikes in 2007, the Wall Street Journal reports there were more than
30 attacks in 2008. So far in 2009, attacks are up 30 percent from last year, with Newsblogging noting
there have been 27 drone attacks, "of which only two occurred before Obama took office." Obama's
administration officials have claimed that drone strikes in Pakistan have killed nine of the 20 top Al
Qaeda officials. Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann echoed in an article last month, "It is possible to
say with some certainty that since the summer of 2008, U.S. drones have killed dozens of lower-ranking
militants and at least ten mid-and upper-level leaders within Al Qaeda and the Taliban."

Dave Bohon, Government Panel Predicts WMD Attack by 2013, New American, 6/ 15/10,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3788-government-panel-predicts-wmd-
attack-by-2013]

 The official report from a blue-ribbon panel warns that terrorists with weapons of massive destruction
(WMD) are likely to attack somewhere in the world in the next three years, and the United States could
be a prime target. According to the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Proliferation and Terrorism, the likelihood is high that by 2013 terrorists will use WMDs in an attack
somewhere in the world, and while several nations with terrorist ties are now in a race to produce
nuclear weapons, the commission’s report says that an attack using biological weapons is the more
likely scenario, with potentially devastating consequences. Among its recommendations, the
commission said it believes that “the U.S. government needs to move more aggressively to limit the
proliferation of biological weapons and reduce the prospect of a bio-terror attack.” The commission, co-
chaired by former U.S. Senators Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Jim Talent (R-Mo.), originally reported its
findings in December 2008. During a June 10 press conference to announce legislation aimed at
addressing dangers from terrorism, members of the commission joined with members of the House

                                                                                                          38
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                   Baca/Veeder
Homeland Security Committee to address the commission’s findings. “The consequences of a biological
attack are almost beyond comprehension,” said former Senator Graham. “It would be 9/11 times ten or
a hundred in terms of the number of people who would be killed.” Noting the millions of Americans who
died as a result of the epidemic flu virus of 1918, Graham predicted that a lab-generated biological
agent in the hands of terrorists could prove far worse. “Today it is still in the laboratory,” he said, “but if
it should get out and into the hands of scientists who knew how to use it for a violent purpose, we could
have multiple times the 40 million people who were killed 100 years ago.” In December 2008, at the
same time the commission presented its findings, former Director of National Intelligence Mike
McConnell offered a similar assessment of the likelihood of a biological attack, telling a Harvard
University audience, “With weapons of mass destruction that could result in the death of many people
— chemical, biological, nuclear — we assess biological as the more likely,” adding that “it’s better than
an even chance in the next five years that an attack by one of those weapons systems will be conducted
in some place on the globe.” While emphasizing the likely scenario of a biological attack, the
commission also warned of the danger that exists of nuclear attacks, and cited efforts by both Iran and
North Korea to produce a nuclear weapon. It also cited the specific danger that Pakistan poses to the
United States, warning that while the country is officially an ally of the United States, “the next terrorist
attack against the United States is likely to originate from within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas”
of Pakistan, which has been identified as a haven for terrorists. “Were one to map terrorism and
weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan,” the report stated. Said
Graham, “We think time is not our ally,” warning that the United States “needs to move with a sense of
urgency.”

Daniel Byman, Ph.D in Political Science, Director for Security Studies Program and for Peace and Security
Studies @ Georgetown, “Foreign Affairs volume 85 no. 2” 2006, p.103

The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) reports that in 2005, only 21
Israeli civilians died at the hands of Hamas—down from 67 in 2004, 45 in 2003, 185 in 2002, and 75 in
2001. Figures for deaths of Israeli soldiers show a comparable decline. This drop-off occurred partly
because Israel’s targeted killings have shattered Palestinian terrorist groups and made it difficult for
them to conduct effective operations. Consider the lethality rate of Hamas attacks since the start of the
second intifada. The number of Hamas attacks grew steadily as the intifada progressed, even as Israel
eliminated Hamas members: there were 19 attacks in 2001, 34 in 2002, 46 in 2003, 202 in 2004, and 179
in 2005 (most in the first half of that year, before a tentative cease-fire took hold). But as the number of
attacks grew, the number of Israeli deaths they caused plunged, suggesting that the attacks themselves
became far less effective. The lethality rate rose from 3.9 deaths per attack in 2001 to 5.4 in 2002, its
highest point. Then, in 2003 the rate began to fall, dropping to 0.98 deaths per attack that year, 0.33 in
2004, and 0.11 in 2005.


Jonathan Ulrich, received his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2005, and his A.B., cum
laude, from Princeton University in 2002. He works as an associate in the International Arbitration
Group of White & Case, LLP, in Washington, D.C., “The Gloves Were Never On: Defining the President's
Authority to Order Targeted Killing in the War Against Terrorism” 2005
The foregoing examination of the basic requirements of the law of armed conflict reveals, in the words
of one commentator, that "targeted killing is the most natural application of the principles of jus in bello
in wars against terror." n112 The practice of assassination, even when justified by the exigencies and
laws of war, is not often viewed as a morally defensible use of force. And yet, the comparatively
widespread acceptance of the higher combatant deaths and collateral damage associated with
conventional conflict is more at odds with the basic jus in bello precept of limited war: The moral

                                                                                                          39
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                 Baca/Veeder
legitimacy of targeted killing becomes even clearer when compared to the alternative means of fighting
terror - that is, the massive invasion of the community that shelters and supports the terrorists in an
attempt to catch or kill the terrorists and destroy their [*1054] infrastructure... Hence, targeted killing
is the preferable method not only because, on a utilitarian calculation, it saves lives - a very weighty
moral consideration - but also because it is more commensurate with a fundamental condition of
justified self-defense, namely, that those killed are responsible for the threat posed. n113 Targeted
killing preserves not only the lives of civilians caught up in the conflict by combatants who often refuse
to fight in the open, but also those of the troops who must engage these terrorists. n114 By directing
the use of force at only those individuals who threaten U.S. soldiers and civilians, targeted killing more
efficiently destroys the terrorists' ability to wage war and inflict terror, while ensuring that collateral
damage is kept to a minimum. This is the very essence of limited war as prescribed by jus in bello.

Right now, as we speak, there are terrorist in the world. States need to uses targeted killing as a means
to stop terrorist, if states don’t act upon this the chances of another terrorist attack is very likely. I
believe I speak for all, when I say that we don’t want another 9-11. So if we don’t use targeted killing to
stop terrorist, another attack is bound to happen and this time thousands of more innocent lives will be
lost.

Thus, I affirm




                                                                                                         40
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                                                 Baca/Veeder

                                                                 DYLAN
I affirm
becuase Targeted killing saves innocent lives
By targeting and killing the specific individuals that are the instigators of terrorist attacks we save the individuals
lives that otherwise would have been killed had the mastermind of the terrorist plot been allowed to live. Douglas
Den Uyl (I’ll) and Douglas Rasmussen, Prof.’s Philosophy Bellarmine and St. John’s, 1981, Reading Nozick, p. 244
Reads
Rand has spoken of the ultimate end as the standard by which all other ends are evaluated. When the ends to be
evaluated are chosen ones the ultimate end is the standard for moral evaluation. Life as the sort of thing a living
entity is, then, is the ultimate standard of value; and since only human beings are capable of choosing their ends, it
is the life as a human being that is the standard for moral evaluation.
Preservation of life is therefore the criterion that should be used to debate this round.
Contention 1 Targeted killing prevents large scale conflict where many more lives are at stake.
By killing targets critical to the instigation of terrorism with drones or highly trained commandos you can protect
the lives of civilians while also protecting a larger portion of military personnel because you remove the threat
while putting fewer soldiers in the line of fire. Highly trained personnel such as Israel’s Sareyet Matkal have proven
successful in eliminating terrorists without causing collateral damage such as the hostage rescue of flight 571 in
1972, of the four terrorists involved, two were killed and two were captured, all of the 90 passengers were rescued
alive. This provides an example that highly trained commandos are capable of storming a small building and
destroying the threatening terrorists among innocent civilians with little to no collateral damage. Drones are also
an effective means of targeted killing while completely removing the risk of soldiers’ lives. The potential risk of
collateral damage in using a drone with explosives is acceptable when you consider the amount of lives at risk
should the terrorist be allowed to live and it also removes all of your own soldiers from the line of fire. The greater
amount life is preserved. The impact is that targeted killing allows the state to remove a threat to save civilian lives
while also removing the risk of most or all of the soldiers’ lives in the conflict depending on the chosen methods.
Contention 2 Targeted Killings stop terrorism in the long run which saves lives of the potential victims of terrorism.
Prof. Daniel Statman, moral philosopher at the University of Haifa in Israel and author of the books Moral Dilemmas and Religion and
Morality, 2004 States
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.
Killing key figures in a terrorist organization simply cuts the amount of skill and leadership they have which makes
them less effective. The Small burst of retaliatory attacks caused by targeted killings is acceptable when the long
term effects of killing cumulative critical targets is realized, simply put, if a bomb maker is dead, he can’t make
bombs anymore, if a key terror strategist is dead, he can’t plan anymore attacks, if no more attacks are planned,
and no more weapons created, the threat from the terrorist group ceases to exist thus preserving the lives of the
would be targets of the terrorist group.
Contention 3 Targeted Killing kills only those responsible for the threats to the state minimizing collateral damage
and sparing individuals that do not need to be killed to stop terrorism.
Prof. Daniel Statman, moral philosopher at the University of Haifa in Israel and author of the books Moral Dilemmas and Religion and
Morality, States
The moral legitimacy of targeted killing becomes even clearer when compared to the alternative means of fighting
terror—that is, the massive invasion of the community that shelters and supports the terrorists in an attempt to
catch or kill the terrorists and destroy their infrastructure. This mode of operation was adopted, for example, by the U.S. and
Britain in Afghanistan and by Israel in its “Operation Defensive Shield” carried out after the terrorist Passover massacre in March 2002. While
many claim this method to be morally preferable to targeted killing—likely because it bears more of a resemblance
to “real” war—I believe the opposite to be true. First, invading a civilian area inevitably leads to the deaths and
injury of far more people, mostly innocent people, than careful use of targeted killing. Second, such actions bring
death, misery, and destruction to people who are only minimally involved (if at all) in, or responsible for, terror or
military attacks, whereas with targeted killing, collateral damage is significantly reduced (though not prevented

                                                                                                                                             41
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                                                   Baca/Veeder
altogether). Hence, targeted killing is the preferable method not only because, on a utilitarian calculation, it saves
lives—a very weighty moral consideration—but also because it is more commensurate with a fundamental condition of
justified self-defense, namely, that those killed are responsible for the threat posed. Members of the Hammas in Gaza are
far more responsible for the threat of terror to Israel than their non-activist neighbors are; hence it is preferable from a moral standpoint to
target the former directly rather than invade Gaza and inevitably cause great injury to the latter and general population.
Targeted killing is the best way to save lives because it eliminates the threat from terrorism without causing far
larger amounts of collateral damage that other methods would, and eliminates only those that are responsible for
the threats, again the small amount of collateral damage caused by targeted killings is acceptable when the
number of lives that are threatened by the terrorist is considered and the far larger amounts of collateral damage
caused by alternative methods is considered.
Thus I affirm.




                                                                                                                                                   42
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                                                                               Baca/Veeder

                                                                          HALEYJANE
I affirm.
As the affirmative i assert Target Killing as justifiable in warfare when faced with terrorism. It is
accepted that target killing is a definite counteraction to terrorism. There are multiple countries
who have used this tactic, exclusively fighting terrorism almost every time. therefore the majority
of this topic must be focused around terrorism in order to accurately articulate a relevant
argument.
When evaluating the resolution we see the VALUE must be MORALITY, as
implied.
And, The drones replacing the troops efficiently save lives.
Rogan writes,
“Over the past twenty years, a new type of force multiplier has emerged within the US military. The unmanned drone has found use in a number of different roles from
functioning as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platform to a weaponized strike asset. Barry R. Posen writes that the advantage that the unmanned drone
offers over satellites in the ISR domain is that these machines can linger, very often undetected, over an objective for hours, even days, without having to move, a capability

                                                                                                                       drones have been
satellites are unable to provide. Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann of the New America Foundation also point out that

successfully used to target key leaders in insurgent and terrorist
organizations during the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.
These unmanned drones have found a growing role in US military operations,
as they offer the capability to have a strike asset available over an extended
period of time to attack targets of opportunity without placing pilots at
risk. Although platforms such as the Predator have been used to attack high-value targets on battlefields in places like Afghanistan, many still argue that the most
effective way to use drones is to integrate drones with their manned counterparts. David Ortiz, while attending classes on the utilization of Air Force intelligence gathering assets

                         systems such as Global Hawk and Predator can be
such as the AWACS and JSTAR aircraft, asserts that

integrated with these aircraft to improve the scope of what the Air Force can
gather intelligence on. This concept is certainly applicable at the tactical
level—drones have been effectively integrated into light infantry and EOD
units to serve as reconnaissance or bomb defusing tools.”
-Christopher Rogan, army cadet, “INCREASING THE COMBAT POWER OF THE SQUAD ON
PATROL: THE POTENTIAL OF THE SOLDIER-PORTABLE DRONE AS A TACTICAL FORCE
MULTIPLIER”, March 29 2010
Therefore, the STANDARD is Maxiumizing innocent lives saved.
I contend that target killings save lives.
And, a more humane warfare can be achieved through drones.
“In both cases, the argument against drones rests on the belief that the attacks cause
wide-scale casualties among noncombatants, thereby embittering local populations and losing hearts
and minds. If you glean your information from wire reports -- which depend on stringers who are

rarely eyewitnesses -- the argument seems almost plausible. Yet anyone familiar with

Predator technology knows how misleading those reports can be. Unlike fighter jets or
cruise missiles, Predators can loiter over their targets for more than 20 hours, take

photos in which men, women and children can be clearly distinguished (burqas can
be visible from 20,000 feet) and deliver laser-guided munitions with low explosive yields.

This minimizes the risks of the "collateral damage" that often comes from
500-pound bombs. Far from being "beyond the pale," drones have made war-fighting more
humane.”
-The Wall Street Journal, " Predators and Civilians " * JULY 14, 2009
Green continues,
                                                                                                                                                                                43
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                                            Baca/Veeder
In August of last year, Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud was spending a humid night on the roof of his father-in-law's house
in South Waziristan. As he relaxed while his wife massaged his legs to ease the painful symptoms of diabetes, a launch order was
given for a missile aboard a U.S. drone flying high above in the Afghani sky. In a matter of seconds, the house was reduced to little
more than a smoking pile of rubble. Mehsud was killed. So were his wife and bodyguards. "That's an acceptable price for taking out
                                                                                                                          "I
a senior leader in the Taliban," says David Rittgers, a former Special Forces operator who has served three tours in Afghanistan.

think if we had a chance to kill Adolph Hitler with a drone and Ava Braun was
going to be a part of the collateral damage, I think that would be viewed as
acceptable," Rittgers adds. "There's a strong parallel between that and Baitullah
Mehsud." Al-Qaida has admitted losing two key members in the last three
months, suffering significant damage to its ability to plan and launch terror
attacks. Saleh al- Somali, senior external operations planner, and Abdullah Said, chief of internal operations, were both
allegedly killed in separate U.S. drone strikes. Collateral damage has historically been a major

concern for U.S. officials. It remains a prickly issue today. While eliminating more than a dozen top al-Qaida linked
terror targets since 2004, hundreds of civilians have died in the process. "While the CIA does not comment

on allegations of Predator operations, the tactics and tools we use in the fight
against al-Qaida and its violent allies are not only lawful, they are
exceptionally precise and effective," says CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano.
-J.J. Green, " Collateral damage 'acceptable' when terrorists targeted" March 9, 2010,
WTOP
If we pursue terrorist with drones we can maintain fewer civilian casualties.
And, Target killings minimize the harms of war..
Lakhani writes,
                                       why does the United States continue to
“If the strategic costs outweigh the tactical benefits,

champion such a policy? Upon studying numerous articles and resources, the answer seems to be: because it
is their best worst option. According to an article in last week's Wall Street Journal, "Unlike fighter jets
or cruise missiles, Predators can loiter over their targets for more than 20
hours, take photos in which men, women and children can be clearly
distinguished (burqas can be visible from 20,000 feet) and deliver laser-guided munitions
with low explosive yields. This minimizes the risks of the 'collateral damage' that often
comes from 500-pound bombs." In Pakistan and Afghanistan, where the U.S. operate the MQ-1
Predator and their more sophisticated successor MQ-9 Reaper drones, the most impressive
thing, noted the Atlantic, is that they fly slow. The news piece elaborated, "That's right, in
counterinsurgency operations, where the goal is to hunt and kill individuals or small groups of
fighters -- rather than to attack mass infantry formations -- the slower a plane flies, the better."
From a U.S. standpoint, the use of drones are not only cheaper than
conventional planes, they also keep pilots and American soldiers "out of
harm's way," particularly since most UAVs are manned from thousands of miles away. The Air Force's Predator missions, for
instance, are operated by pilots sitting in trailers at Nellis Air Force base outside Las Vegas, Nevada. In the aforementioned 2006 Atlantic
piece, "Hunting the Taliban in Las Vegas," Robert Kaplan described the inside of one of these trailers, Like sub drivers, Pred pilots fly
blind, using only the visual depiction of their location on a map and math--numerical readouts indicating latitude, longitude, height, wind
speeds, ground elevation, nearby planes, and so forth. The camera in the rotating ball focuses only on the object under surveillance. The
crew's situational awareness is restricted to the enemy on the ground. Much of the time during a stakeout, the Pred flies a pre-
programmed hexagon, racetrack, bow tie, or some other circular-type holding pattern. Each trailer holds a two-person crew: a pilot and a
"sensor," who operates the ball. Both face half a dozen computer screens, including map displays and close-up shots of the object under
surveillance. Today, MQ-9 Reapers are slowly replacing the Predators, which are a newer model and more heavily armed. And,       in a
sign of growing U.S. support for these drones, the military is spending
significant more money on this technology, from $880 million in 2007 to $2
                                                                                                                                        44
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                                                                                   Baca/Veeder

billion a year. Several sources note that the strikes have disrupted Al Qaeda's
operations, and Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, testified to Congress in February that "replacing the loss of
key leaders since 2008 in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas has proved difficult for Al Qaeda." Someone speaking from a
                                   bombs in the air are a better and more
U.S. national security standpoint would also point out that

viable option than boots on the ground.”
And, Target killings are far better than the alternatives.
Ulrich writes,
The foregoing examination of the basic requirements of the law of armed conflict reveals, in the words of one commentator, that  "targeted killing is the
most natural application of the principles of jus in bello in wars against terror." n112
The practice of assassination, even when justified by the exigencies and laws of war,
is not often viewed as a morally defensible use of force. And yet, the comparatively widespread acceptance of the
higher combatant deaths and collateral damage associated with conventional conflict is more at odds with the basic jus in bello precept of limited war: The moral

legitimacy of targeted killing becomes even clearer when compared to the
alternative means of fighting terror - that is, the massive invasion of the community
that shelters and supports the terrorists in an attempt to catch or kill the terrorists
and destroy their [*1054] infrastructure... Hence, targeted killing is the preferable method not only because, on a utilitarian
calculation, it saves lives - a very weighty moral consideration - but also because it is more commensurate with a fundamental condition of justified self-defense, namely, that those

                                            Targeted killing preserves not only the lives of civilians
killed are responsible for the threat posed. n113

caught up in the conflict by combatants who often refuse to fight in the open, but also
those of the troops who must engage these terrorists. n114 By directing the use of force at only those individuals who
threaten U.S. soldiers and civilians, targeted killing more efficiently destroys the terrorists' ability to

wage war and inflict terror, while ensuring that collateral damage is kept to a
minimum. This is the very essence of limited war as prescribed by jus in bello.
Thus, i affirm.




                                                                                                                                                                                     45
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                   Baca/Veeder

                                                HUNTER
Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.
I affirm.
The affirmative confines that in today’s world the topic of targeted killing is pointed towards terrorists. It
has been widely known to be a policy in response to terrorist acts. Therefore the debate should be
limited to targeting only terrorists. Also, since the resolution does not specify the foreign policy of a
country in targeted killing it is recommended that we stay within the grounds of just the United States
foreign policy due to the lack of time and knowledge we may have of every countries policy.
Since the resolution entails us to discuss the moral permissibility’s of targeted killing my VALUE is
MORALITY.
First, respecting the equal moral worth of all individuals requires consequentialism.

David Cummiskey, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Bates College. Kantian Consequentialism. 1996.

According to Kant, the objective end of moral action is the existence of rational beings. Respect for
rational beings requires that in deciding what to do, one must give appropriate practical consideration
to the unconditional value of rational beings and to the conditional value of happiness. Since agent-
centered constraints require a non-value-based rationale, the most natural interpretation of the
demand that one give equal respect to all rational beings leads to a consequentialist normative theory.
We have seen that there is no sound Kantian reason for abandoning this natural consequentialist
interpretation.
In particular, a consequentialist interpretation does not require sacrifices that a Kantian ought to
consider unreasonable, and it does not involve doing evil so that good may come of it. It simply requires
an uncompromising commitment to the equal value and equal claims of all rational beings and a
recognition that in the moral consideration of conduct, one's own subjective concerns do not have
overriding importance.

Therefore, the best way to obtain the only rational moralities of this debate is to look towards the
benefits of targeted killing and how it is best for everyone as a whole. Therefore, the STANDARD is
ACHIEVING UTILITARIANISM.
My FIRST CONTENTION is that targeted killing is the best method of getting rid of terrorists
Gary Solis; 2006–2007 Scholar in Residence at the Library of Congress, a U.S. Military Academy professor
of law (retired), and an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center; TARGETED
KILLING AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT; Naval War College Review, Spring 2007, Vol. 60, No. 2
Killing senior terrorists, expert bomb makers, and those who provide philosophical guidance for
terrorists may spare countless noncombatant victims while, at the same time, forgoing risk to friendly
combatant forces. A successful targeted killing removes a dangerous enemy from the battlefield and
deprives the foe of his leadership, guidance, and experience. The targeted killing of terrorist leaders
leaves subordinates confused and in disarray, however temporarily. Successors will feel trepidation,
knowing they too may be in the enemy’s sights. Targeted killing unbalances terrorist organizations,
making them concerned with protecting their own membership and diverting them from their goals.

My SECOND CONTENTION is States a have a right to targeted killings for self defense.
Amos Guiora, Visiting Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law; served for 19
years in the Israel Defense Forces, Judge Advocate General Corps (Lt. Col.). The opinions expressed are
the authors alone. Special thanks to research assistant Niki Dorsky and colleagues Jon Leiken and Marc
Stern for their significant contributions to this work. 2005



                                                                                                          46
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                  Baca/Veeder
Because the fight against terrorism takes place in what has been referred to as the "back alleys and dark
shadows against an unseen enemy," the State, in order to adequately defend itself, must be able to take
the fight to the terrorist before the terrorist takes the fight to it. From experience gained over the years,
it has become clear that the State must be able to act preemptively in order to either deter terrorists or,
at the very least, prevent the terrorist act from taking place. By now, we have learned the price society
pays if it is unable to prevent terrorist acts. The question that must be answered—both from a legal and
policy perspective—is what tools should be given to the State to combat terrorism? What I term active
self-defense would appear to be the most effective tool; that is, rather than wait for the actual armed
attack to “occur” (Article 51), the State must be able to act anticipatorily (Caroline) against the non-State
actor (not considered in Caroline).

Now that we have established the immediate importance and legal legitimacy of targeted killing we
must look to the dangers of restricting targeted killing.

My THIRD CONTENTION is that by strengthening international law on TK’s would be bad and would hurt
US war on terror efforts

P.W. Singer, Director of the 21st-Century Defense Initiative at Brookings, Wired for War: The Robotics
Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century, 2009, p. 391]

The "soldiers" who respect the laws of war might then be at a disadvantage to the "warriors" and
criminals who do not. It is not merely that the laws and lawyers limit what they can do, but that the
other side knows the limits, and will do everything possible to take advantage. During the Fallujah
fighting in 2004, for example, insurgents knew U.S. forces were prohibited from shooting at ambulances,
so they used them as taxis to carry about fighters and weapons. Such "lawfare," describes Major
General Dunlap, is perhaps the ultimate misuse of international law, because it knowingly abuses it.
"They are intent on manipulating our adherence to the rule of law." Ralph Peters is more blunt. "We
approach war in terror of lawsuits and criminal charges. Our enemies are enthusiastic killers. Who has
the psychological advantage?"

As a result my FOURTH CONTENTION is that the United States “hard power” would decline.
Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D., “The Importance of Hard Power” a former assistant secretary of state, is a vice
president at the Heritage Foundation and author of "Liberty's Best Hope: American Leadership for the
21st Century" (June 12, 2009
It was not Prime Minister Gordon Brown's finest hour. In his D-Day speech earlier this week, the
beleaguered British leader solemnly announced: "Next to Obama Beach, we join President Obama in
paying particular tribute to the spectacular bravery of American soldiers who gave their lives. "Most
assume it was a Freudian slip or a teleprompter malfunction (something from which Mr. Obama himself
has been known to suffer). But maybe there's more to think about here. Europe today is much different
from the continent where Allied forces landed 65 years ago. On that first D-Day, it was all about "hard
power." From ships to landing craft, jeeps to tanks, men to material, everything and everyone involved
in the landings were focused on using military might to crack open Hitler's "Fortress Europe." But today,
while many German pillboxes remain in Normandy (and look as if they'd be difficult to overtake, even
with modern weapons), the rest of Europe has changed. Its focus now is on "soft power," chiefly
diplomacy and aid. Many, if not most, Europeans credit "soft power" for the peace they've enjoyed for
decades. Thinking their version of a Kantian universal peace arose from the committee chambers of the
European Union - and not from the victories of the Western powers in World War II and the Cold War -
they hold up soft power as a model for the rest of the world. In their view, bridging the often hardened
differences between states and shaping their decisions requires mainly negotiation and common

                                                                                                         47
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                 Baca/Veeder
understanding. The importance of our military strength is downplayed and sometimes even seen as the
main obstacle to peace. Even when its importance is acknowledged, it's a perfunctory afterthought.
Many liberals are now pressing the U.S. government to adopt this vision, too. But the futility of it (Soft
Power) can be seen everywhere, from the failure of negotiations to deter both Iran and North Korea
from their nuclear programs over the past five years - a period in which their efforts have only matured -
to the lackluster response to Russia's invasion of Georgian territory. The limits of soft power have not
only bedeviled Mr. Obama but George W. Bush as well. After applying pressure on North Korea so
diligently in 2006, the Bush administration relaxed its posture in early 2007, and North Korea concluded
that it was again free to backslide on its commitments. Two years later, this effort to "engage" North
Korea, which the Obama administration continued even after North Korea's April 5 missile test, has only
led North Korea to believe that it can get away with more missile tests and nuclear weapons
detonations. And so far, it has. The problem here is not process of "talking" and trying to achieve
"mutual understanding" - as if diplomacy were merely about communications and eliminating hurt
feelings. Rather, it is about the interaction and sometimes clash of hardened interests and ideologies.
These are serious matters, and you don't take them seriously by wishing merely an overconfidence in
the away the necessity, when need be, of using the hard power of force to settle things. It's this
connection of hard to soft power that Mr. Obama appears not to understand. In what is becoming a
signature trait of saying one thing and doing another, Mr. Obama has argued that America must
"combine military power with strengthened diplomacy." But since becoming president he has done little
to demonstrate an actual commitment to forging a policy that combines America's military power with
diplomatic strategies. For America to be an effective leader and arbiter of the international order, it
must be willing to maintain a world-class military. That requires resources: spending, on average, no less
than 4 percent of the nation's gross domestic product on defense. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama's next
proposed defense budget and Secretary of defense Robert M. Gates' vision for "rebalancing" the
military are drastically disconnected from the broad range of strategic priorities that a superpower like
the United States must influence and achieve. If our country allows its hard power to wane, our leaders
will lose crucial diplomatic clout. This is already on display in the western Pacific Ocean, where America's
ability to hedge against the growing ambitions of a rising China is being called into question by some of
our key Asian allies. Recently, Australia released a defense white paper concerned primarily with the
potential decline of U.S. military primacy and its implications for Australian security and stability in the
Asia-Pacific. These developments are anything but reassuring. The ability of the United States to
reassure friends, deter competitors, coerce belligerent states and defeat enemies does not rest on the
strength of our political leaders' commitment to diplomacy; it rests on the foundation of a powerful
military. The United States can succeed in advancing its priorities by diplomatic means only so long as it
retains a "big stick." Only by building a full-spectrum military force can America reassure its many friends
and allies and count on their future support. The next British leader - and the rest of our allies - need to
know they can count on the U.S. to intervene on their behalf any time, anywhere it has to. That will
require hard power, not just soft, diplomatic words murmured whilst strolling serenely along "Obama
Beach."
Finally through decrease in hard power can lead to my FIFTH CONTENTION a decline in hegemony
causes massive wars and nuclear exchange.
Nial Ferguson, history professor, NYU, FOREIGN POLICY, July/August, 2004, p. online

So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified
cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself
reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than
the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous – roughly 20 times more so
friction between the world’s disparate “tribes” is bound to be more frequent. Technology has
transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but

                                                                                                        48
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                Baca/Veeder
also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, so it is
now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. ....The reversal of globalization – which a new
Dark Age would produce – would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. ....The
worse effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the warring great powers. The
wealthiest powers of the global economy – from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai – would become
the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas,
targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated
on making their airports secure. Meanwhile nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning
in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin
America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evanglical Christianity imported by U.S. religious
workers. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria could continue their deadly work. If the United
States retreats from global hegemony, its fragile -- its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the
imperial frontier – its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new area
of multipolar harmony., or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for.
The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity – a global vacuum
of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new
world disorder.

In CONCLUSION, without the policy of targeted killing would cause immediate and postponed
devastation. Without it we are allowing key terrorists to roam free and wreak havoc. Also, without it we
are allowing our cause of ending terrorism to falter, thus, destroying our hard power, which will in turn
destroy the hegemony in the US leading to a massive nuclear exchange. If you are in favor for protecting
the greatest amount of people than you must vote in the affirmative sense of being morally permissible
in targeted killing. If these chain of events would occur as a result to not stopping these terrorists
through targeted killing than we are not fulfilling our moral obligations of protecting the greatest
amount of people.

Thus, I affirm.




                                                                                                       49
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                  Baca/Veeder

                                                JACOB
AFF
Value: Morality. Morality is conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. Doing
what’s right.
Standard: Achieving the greatest utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the right
course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "good" consequences of the action. It is thus a
form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its resulting
outcome.
Contention 1: Targeted killing is moral and legal
A. Targeted killing is legal under international law.
The UN, the body responsible for international law, recognizes the right to self-defense despite anything
else in the charter that might be interpreted otherwise. According to article 51 of the UN Charter2:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an
armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations
And, targeted killings meet article 51 in addition to every other international legal norm regarding self-
defense. Additionally, because of the nature of terrorism, states have the right to preemptive targeted
killing.

B. Preemptive targeted killing is needed to fight terrorism     Guiora writes3:

Because the fight against terrorism takes place in what has been referred to as the "back alleys and
dark shadows against an unseen enemy," the State, in order to adequately defend itself, must be able
to take the fight to the terrorist before the terrorist takes the fight to it. From experience gained over
the years, it has become clear that the State must be able to act preemptively in order to either deter
terrorists or, at the very least, prevent the terrorist act from taking place. By now, we have learned the
price society pays if it is unable to prevent terrorist acts. The question that must be answered—both
from a legal and policy perspective—is what tools should be given to the State to combat terrorism?
What I term active self-defense would appear to be the most effective tool; that is, rather than wait
for the actual armed attack to “occur” (Article 51), the State must be able to act anticipatorily
(Caroline) against the non-State actor (not considered in Caroline).

C. Targeted killing is a permissible and moral method when exercised properly.
Alan Dershowitz 2011 Criminal and civil liberties lawyer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-
dershowitz/targeted-killing-vindicat_b_856538.html
The decision to target and kill Osama Bin Laden is being applauded by all decent people. Approval to
capture or kill this mass-murdering terrorist leader was given by Presidents Obama and Bush. It was the
right decision, both morally and legally. Although Bin Laden wore no military uniform and held no
official military rank, he was an appropriate military target. As head of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden was
the functional equivalent of a head of state or commander in chief of a terrorist army. From the
beginning of recorded history, killing the king was the legitimate object of military action. The very
phrase "check mate" means "the king is dead, "signifying the successful end of the battle. Yet there are
those who claim that all targeted killings are immoral and illegal. These critics characterize actions as
"extrajudicial executions" demanding terrorist leaders be treated as common criminals who must be
arrested and brought to trial. The operation that resulted in Bin Laden's death was a military action
calculated to kill rather than to "arrest" It is possible, though highly unlikely, that he could have been




                                                                                                         50
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                Baca/Veeder
captured alive and brought to trial. The decision to employ military personnel with guns, rather than a
drone firing rockets, was probably made by generals rather than lawyers. Had it been militarily
preferable to fire a rocket, that option would almost certainly have been selected--as it was by the NATO
forces that rocketed Ghadafy's compound. A rocket attack would have been a pure targeted killing with
no possibility of live capture. The operation directed against Bin Laden may have been designed, in part,
to have preserved the theoretical option of "arrest", though the likelihood of a live capture was virtually
impossible under the circumstances. Indeed it is likely that Bin Laden's death was deemed preferential
to his capture and trial, because the latter would have raised the probability that Al Qaeda would take
hostages and try to exchange them for Bin Laden. Accordingly, those who have opposed the very
concept of targeted killings should be railing against the killing of Osama Bin Laden. On balance,
targeted killing, when used prudently against proper military targets, can be an effective, lawful, and
moral tool in the war against terrorism. Many nations in the past have objected with these ideals.
(England, France, Russia, Italy, and more) Yet none of these nations, groups or individuals have criticized
the targeted killing of Osama Bin Laden by the US. The reason is obvious. All the condemnations against
targeted killing have been directed at one country, Israel. We can see that Targeted killing is acceptable
when used correctly. And the consequences that would follow capture aren’t worth it. In the case of
Osama Bin Laden it is clear that targeted killing isn’t limited to UAV attack, other methods are available
if needed.




Contention 2: Consequences of large scale conflict.

A. The war on terror has cause suffering.
 David Wood 2010 Chief Military Correspondent:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CdGcOMM2NFgJ:www.politicsdaily.com/201
0/03/03/u-s-casualties-in-afghan-war-soar-toward-15-000-dead-and-
injure/+war+on+terror+death+toll+2011&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-
a&source=www.google.com
Those killed or injured in Iraq, have pushed the human cost of what the Bush administration called the
Global War on Terrorism beyond 88,000 casualties. In contrast to these announced deaths, the
wounded come home anonymously, many of them for months of surgeries and painful rehab at
Washington's Walter Reed Army Medical Center or Bethesda Naval Medical Center in Maryland or
Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio. The number of casualties for those medically evacuated
because of injury or disease. Stood at 37,732 in Iraq and 8,712 from Afghanistan in January 2010
The wounded also include some who are so badly wounded, with a combination of burns, traumatic
amputations, spinal cord injuries, shattered limbs and faces, severe internal injuries, and deep
psychological trauma, that they are beyond even advanced care

"We let him enlist in the Army and he came back very damaged,'' Pam Estes, the mother of a soldier

                                                                                                       51
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                  Baca/Veeder
who suffered traumatic brain injury and other wounds from an improvised explosive device, told me not
long ago. Her son, Jason Ehrhart, has a full-time caregiver and attends daily sessions for physical,
occupational, cognitive and speech therapy -- all paid for by the Department of Veterans Affairs. "It's
definitely a life-changing thing,'' Estes said with some understatement.

In his recent book, "The Good Soldiers," David Finkel writes of a soldier in Iraq, Patrick Hanley, a truck
commander leading a convoy down a road studded with IEDs, one of which would detonate beneath
Hanley's vehicle. Hanley, Finkel writes, Who"was about to give his entire left arm to the cause of
freedom, as well as part of the left temporal lobe of his brain, which would leave him unconscious and
nearly dead for five weeks, and with long-term memory loss, dizziness so severe for eight months he
would throw up when he moved his head.

Even though some of these soldiers will recover, they will never be the same. Their lives have been
changed forever. But let’s not just think about our soldiers but also think of the civilians in Afghanistan
and Iraq who have suffered equally because of this war.




B. The costs war.
Howard Zinn 2001(Zinn, Howard. "A Just Cause ≠ A Just War | The Progressive." The Progressive | Peace
and Social Justice since 1909. Web. 21 July 2010. <http://www.progressive.org/zinnjuly09.html>.)

When considering war you need to weigh the human cost against what you gain from war. When you
think about the human cost, generally it’s an abstraction: 25,000 people died in the Revolutionary War;
600,000 people died in the Civil War; fifty million people died in World War II. But you have to look at
that cost not as an abstraction, not as a statistic. You have to look at it as every human being who died,
lost a limb, came out blind, and every human being who came out mentally damaged. You have to put
all of that together when you’re assessing that side of the ledger: the cost of the war. Before you ask,
“Was it worth it? Was it a just war?” you’ve got to get that side of the ledger right.




                                                                                                          52
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                             Baca/Veeder




Contention 3: Targeted killings save lives.
HANS-INGE LANGØ 2011 http://hegemonicobsessions.com/?p=438
There have been 193 authorized drone attacks in Pakistan alone. Targeted killings are legal, presidents
of both parties have found them useful, and in some cases they are popular, particularly when the
target is almost universally despised. In a USA Today/Gallup poll released Tuesday, 93 percent of
Americans approve of the military operation that killed bin Laden, and 60 percent think it was better
that we killed, rather than captured, him. They may also be morally preferable. In this particular
instance we have a prime example of why targeted killings may better serve our ends. Advances in
technology have given us the means to prevent terrorism and punish terrorists without invading
countries and exposing countless civilians to violence. If we agree that the goal is worthwhile, a
precision attack with special operations forces is certainly preferable to an invasion of Pakistan.
Furthermore, the particular methods used in Abbottabad, while riskier than a drone strike, are
nonetheless less likely to harm innocents. Think about how many lives would have been lost if we had to
send in soldiers instead. Had we focused on a less intrusive counterterrorism strategy that included
Targeted killings instead of a global counterinsurgency, perhaps thousands of lives would not have been
lost and millions more would have less reason to hate us.




                                                                                                    53
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                  Baca/Veeder

                                                 JULIA
I affirm.
Targeted killing is addressed as a tool of foreign policy, since we are evaluating the moral permissibility
of such acts the value is morality. We must define morality as the rational behavioral standard which
underlines right conduct.
Observation 1: It is noted that a vast majority of targeted killings occur within the U.S., thus we need to
primarily focus on these grounds.
Thus, the burden of the affirmative is to uphold such moral conduct that is within targeted killing.
Life is the prerequisite to all other value.
Uyl & Ramussen 81 writes:

In so far as one chooses, regardless of the choice, one choose (value) man's life. It makes no sense to
value some X without also valuing that which makes the valuing of X possible ~:notice that this is
different from saying "that which makes X possible"). If one lets X be equivalent to "death" or "the
greatest happiness for the greatest number," one is able to have such a valuation only because of the
precondition of being a living being. Given that life is a necessary condition for valuation, there is no
other way we can value something without also (implicitly at least) valuing that which makes valuation
possible.
Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen, Prof.’s Philosophy Bellarmine and St. John’s, 1981, Reading
Nozick, p. 245

The right to self-defense stems from the right to life – we must protect self-defense to protect life, thus
self-defense is a natural right.
Wallerstein 05 writes:
Starting from the premise of an absolute unqualified right not to be killed, it follows that self-defense, as
a derivative right, must be an absolute natural right as well. This is so because without an absolute right
to self-defense the right not to be killed can hardly be regarded as a right, as it provides its owner no
effective tools to protect it. Self-defense plays a major role in resisting the direct imminent unjust threat
posed by an aggressor. It also has an addi- tional role in the defense against an indirect threat to
autonomy, a threat that is generated by the fear and instability that the lack of such a right would bring
about. It constitutes one of the basic conditions that allow people to live together in society. One of the
rea- sons we value life is because it is a necessary precondition to the possibility of autonomy, of
pursuing various personal and commu- nal goals. Thus, the right to self-defense can be partly explained
by reason of its implications for autonomy. No matter how compre- hensive the rules of a given society
are, there will always be situa- tions where one is unable to turn to the community for help. Unless the
possibility to defend oneself is recognized in these situa- tions, the risks associated with living in a
society would increase. Many people would devote their lives to creating conditions that would ensure
their survival instead of promoting their autonomy in other ways. Given that life is a precondition of (or
at any rate, closely connected to) autonomy, the protection of these two inter- ests is inseparable; even
if we justify the right of self-defense in terms of defending one’s life from an imminent unjust threat, the
defense of life is, inter alia, a defense of autonomy.
Shlomit Wallerstein, Lecturer, St. Peter's College, Oxford University. “Justifying the Right to Self-Defense:
A Theory of Forced Consequences” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 4 (Jun., 2005), pp. 999-1035
The only reason humans leave the state of nature and form states is out of a rational need for self-
defense. Not acting in self-defense is contrary to rationality.
Vattel 83 writes:
Man is so formed by nature, that he cannot supply all his own wants, but necessarily stands in need of
the intercourse and assistance of his fellow-creatures, whether for his immediate preservation, or for
the sake of perfecting his nature, and enjoying such a life as is suitable to a rational being. This is

                                                                                                         54
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                 Baca/Veeder
sufficiently proved by experience. We have instances of persons, who, having grown up to manhood
among the bears of the forest, enjoyed not the use of speech or of reason, but were, like the brute
beasts, possessed only of sensitive faculties. We see moreover that nature has refused to bestow on
men the same strength and natural weapons of defense with which she has furnished other animals —
having, in lieu of those advantages, endowed mankind with the faculties of speech and reason, or at
least a capability of acquiring them by an intercourse with their fellow-creatures. Speech enables them
to communicate with each other, to give each other mutual assistance, to perfect their reason and
knowledge; and having thus become intelligent, they find a thousand methods of preserving themselves,
and supplying their wants. Each individual, moreover, is intimately conscious that he can neither live
happily nor improve his nature without the intercourse and assistance of others. Since, therefore,
nature has thus formed mankind, it is a convincing proof of her intention that they should communicate
with, and mutually aid and assist each other. Hence is deduced the establishment of natural society
among men. The general law of that society is, that each individual should do for the others every thing
which their necessities require, and which he can perform without neglecting the duty that he owes to
himself: (4) a law which all men must observe in order to live in a manner consonant to their nature, and
conformable to the views of their common Creator — a law which our own safety, our happiness, our
dearest interests, ought to render sacred to every one of us. Such is the general obligation that binds us
to the observance of our duties: let us fulfil them with care, if we would wisely endeavour to promote
our own advantage. (5) It is easy to conceive what exalted felicity the world would enjoy, were all men
willing to observe the rule that we have just laid down.
The US can’t risk failing on counter-terrorism—A nuclear or biological terror attack against the US or an
ally will probably happen in less than 2 years—A bioweapon attack would kill at least 40 million
Bohon 10 writes:

The official report from a blue-ribbon panel warns that terrorists with weapons of massive destruction
(WMD’s) are likely to attack somewhere in the world in the next three years, and the United States
could be a prime target. According to the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass
Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, the likelihood is high that by 2013 terrorists will use WMDs in
an attack somewhere in the world, and while several nations with terrorist ties are now in a race to
produce nuclear weapons, the commission’s report says that an attack using biological weapons is the
more likely scenario, with potentially devastating consequences. Among its recommendations, the
commission said it believes that “the U.S. government needs to move more aggressively to limit the
proliferation of biological weapons and reduce the prospect of a bio-terror attack.” The commission, co-
chaired by former U.S. Senators Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Jim Talent (R-Mo.), originally reported its
findings in December 2008. During a June 10 press conference to announce legislation aimed at
addressing dangers from terrorism, members of the commission joined with members of the House
Homeland Security Committee to address the commission’s findings. “The consequences of a biological
attack are almost beyond comprehension,” said former Senator Graham. “It would be 9/11 times ten
or a hundred in terms of the number of people who would be killed.” Noting the millions of Americans
who died as a result of the epidemic flu virus of 1918, Graham predicted that a lab-generated
biological agent in the hands of terrorists could prove far worse. “Today it is still in the laboratory,” he
said, “but if it should get out and into the hands of scientists who knew how to use it for a violent
purpose, we could have multiple times the 40 million people who were killed 100 years ago.” In
December 2008, at the same time the commission presented its findings, former Director of National
Intelligence Mike McConnell offered a similar assessment of the likelihood of a biological attack,
telling a Harvard University audience, “With weapons of mass destruction that could result in the
death of many people — chemical, biological, nuclear — we assess biological as the more likely,”
adding that “it’s better than an even chance in the next five years that an attack by one of those
weapons systems will be conducted in some place on the globe.” While emphasizing the likely

                                                                                                         55
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                    Baca/Veeder
scenario of a biological attack, the commission also warned of the danger that exists of nuclear attacks,
and cited efforts by both Iran and North Korea to produce a nuclear weapon. It also cited the specific
danger that Pakistan poses to the United States, warning that while the country is officially an ally of the
United States, “the next terrorist attack against the United States is likely to originate from within the
Federally Administered Tribal Areas” of Pakistan, which has been identified as a haven for terrorists.
“Were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in
Pakistan,” the report stated. Said Graham, “We think time is not our ally,” warning that the United
States “needs to move with a sense of urgency.”
Dave Bohon, Government Panel Predicts WMD Attack by 2013, New American, 6/ 15/10,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3788-government-panel-predicts-wmd-
attack-by-2013]

In the face of disaster we must err towards consequentialism.
Bok 88 writes:

The same argument can be made for Kant's other formulations of the Categorical Imperative: "So act as
to use humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other, always at the same time as
an end, never simply as a means"; and "So act as if you were always through actions a law-making
member in a universal Kingdom of Ends." No one with a concern for humanity could consistently will to
risk eliminating humanity in the person of himself and every other or to risk the death of all members in
a universal Kingdom of Ends for the sake of justice. To risk their collective death for the sake of following
one's conscience would be, as Rawls said, "irrational, crazy." And to say that one did not intend such a
catastrophe, but that one merely failed to stop other persons from bringing it about would be beside
the point when the end of the world was at stake, For although it is true that we cannot be held
responsible for most of the wrongs that others commit, the Latin maxim presents a case
where we would have to take such a responsibility seriously - perhaps to the point of deceiving, bribing,
even killing an innocent person, in order that the world not perish.
Sissela Bok, Professor of Philosophy, Brandeis, Applied Ethics and Ethical Theory, Ed. David Rosenthal
and Fudlou Shehadi, 1988
Conrad D. Johnson, 'The Authority of the Moral Agent', Journal of Philosophy 82, No 8 (August 1985), pp.
391

Utilitarianism is best because moral rights and wrongs are based on consequences.
Johnson 85 writes:
If we follow the usual deontological conception, there are also well-known difficulties. If it is simply
wrong to kill the innocent, the wrongness must in some way be connected to the consequences. That an
innocent person is killed must be a consequence that has some important bearing on the wrongness of
the action; else why be so concerned about the killing of an innocent? Further, if it is wrong in certain
cases for the agent to weigh the consequences in deciding whether to kill or to break a promise, it is
hard to deny that this has some connection to the consequences. Following one line of thought, it is
consequentialist considerations of mistrust that stand behind such restrictions on what the agent may
take into account.
Conrad D. Johnson, 'The Authority of the Moral Agent', Journal of Philosophy 82, No 8 (August 1985), pp.
391

Thus, the value of life is ensued and we are held with the obligation to uphold this through targeted
killings, whereas it is the only way to sufficiently protect other nations and its’ citizens. That being said
the standard is utilitarianism, where we are providing the greatest amount of good for the greatest
amount of people.

                                                                                                            56
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                  Baca/Veeder
Emerich Vattel. The Law of Nations. T. & J.W. JOHNSON & CO., LAW BOOKSELLERS, 1883.

It’s empirically proven that targeted killing substantially reduces the effectiveness of terrorist operations
as well as the lethality of the attacks.
Byman 06:
The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) reports that in 2005, only 21
Israeli civilians died at the hands of Hamas—down from 67 in 2004, 45 in 2003, 185 in 2002, and 75 in
2001. Figures for deaths of Israeli soldiers show a comparable decline. This drop-off occurred partly
because Israel’s targeted killings have shattered Palestinian terrorist groups and made it difficult for
them to conduct effective operations. Consider the lethality rate of Hamas attacks since the start of the
second intifada. The number of Hamas attacks grew steadily as the intifada progressed, even as Israel
eliminated Hamas members: there were 19 attacks in 2001, 34 in 2002, 46 in 2003, 202 in 2004, and 179
in 2005 (most in the first half of that year, before a tentative cease-fire took hold). But as the number of
attacks grew, the number of Israeli deaths they caused plunged, suggesting that the attacks themselves
became far less effective. The lethality rate rose from 3.9 deaths per attack in 2001 to 5.4 in 2002, its
highest point. Then, in 2003 the rate began to fall, dropping to 0.98 deaths per attack that year, 0.33 in
2004, and 0.11 in 2005.
Daniel Byman, Ph.D in Political Science, Director for Security Studies Program and for Peace and Security
Studies @ Georgetown, “Foreign Affairs volume 85 no. 2” 2006, p.103

Targeted killings are the only way to win the GWOT
Anderson 10 says:
Indeed, CIA director Leon Panetta says that drones are “the only game in town in terms of confronting
or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership.” There is every reason to believe him.
In January 2010 alone, a dozen strikes were launched just in the Pakistani tribal region of Waziristan.
With the beginning of the promised offensive against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Predator attacks have
likewise surged against targets in Pakistan, concurrent with moves by Pakistani intelligence to detain
Taliban leaders, and also concurrent with the extensive use of UAVs on the battlefield in the Afghan
offensive (primarily as an urban surveillance tool but also for missile strikes). Obama promised that his
administration would go after al Qaeda and Taliban in their refuges in Pakistan—with or without the
permission of the Pakistani government, he pointedly said—and so he has done.
The aggressive expansion of the Predator targeted killing program is the Obama administration’s one
unambiguous innovation in the war against terrorists. The adaptation of UAV surveillance craft into
missile platforms took place as an improvisation in 2002 under the Bush administration—but its
embrace as the centerpiece of U.S. counterterrorism operations belongs to Obama. It is not the whole
of it—the Obama administration has expanded joint operations with Pakistan and Yemen, and launched
commando operations in Somalia against terrorists. But of all the ways it has undertaken to strike
directly against terrorists, this administration owns the Predator drone strategy. It argued for it,
expanded it, and used it, in the words of the president’s State of the Union address, to “take the fight
to al Qaeda.”
As al Qaeda, its affiliates, and other transnational jihadists seek shelter in lightly governed places such
as Yemen or Somalia, the Obama administration says the United States will follow them and deny
them safe haven. Speaking at West Point, the president obliquely referred to so-called targeted
killings—we will have to be “nimble and precise” in the use of military power, he said, adding that “high-
ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al
Qaeda worldwide.”
The Predator drone strategy is a rare example of something that has gone really, really well for the
Obama administration. Counterterrorism “on offense” has done better, ironically, under an
administration that hoped it could just play counterterrorism on defense—wind down wars, wish

                                                                                                          57
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                               Baca/Veeder
away the threat as a bad dream from the Bush years, hope the whole business would fade away so it
could focus on health care. Yet for all that, the Obama administration, through Predator strikes, is
taking the fight to the enemy.
And, let’s face it, in dealing with terrorist groups in ungoverned places in the world, we have few good
options besides UAVs. Drones permit the United States to go directly after terrorists, rather than
having to fight through whole countries to reach them. Maybe that’s not enough to win. Maybe “light-
footprint” counterterrorism via drones turns out to be just the latest chimera in the perennial effort to
find a way to win a war through strategic airpower. Yet even in a serious counterinsurgency on the
ground, drones will still be important as a means of attacking terrorists while clearing and holding
territory. The upshot? As long as we engage in counterterrorism, drones will be a critical part of our
offense.
Kenneth Anderson, Visiting Fellow on the Hoover Task Force on National Security and Law and Professor
of Law at American University, “Predators over Pakistan,” The Weekly Standard Vol. 15, No. 24,
3/8/2010, http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/predators-over-pakistan


Thus, I affirm.




                                                                                                      58
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                    Baca/Veeder

                                                 MOLLY
AFF Case

I offer the following definitions.

Targeted Killing: the deliberate, specific targeting and killing, by a government or its agents, of a
terrorist or of an "unlawful combatant" (i.e., one taking a direct part in hostilities in the context of an
armed conflict) who is not in that government's custody

Foreign Policy: self-interest strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to
achieve its goals

My value for this debate is Morality, defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and
wrong.
Morally is best used in context of the Aff position because it is priority to preserve as many lives as
possible, which brings me to my criterion of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is defined as the doctrine that
actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority




                                                                                                              59
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                  Baca/Veeder
Contention 1: Target killing saves more lives

    Subpoint A: Targeted killings are far better than the alternatives.

Jonathan Ulrich, received his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2005, and his A.B., cum
laude, from Princeton University in 2002. He works as an associate in the International Arbitration
Group of White & Case, LLP, in Washington, D.C., “The Gloves Were Never On: Defining the President's
Authority to Order Targeted Killing in the War Against Terrorism” 2005
The foregoing examination of the basic requirements of the law of armed conflict reveals, in the words
of one commentator, that "targeted killing is the most natural application of the principles of jus in bello
in wars against terror." n112 The practice of assassination, even when justified by the exigencies and
laws of war, is not often viewed as a morally defensible use of force. And yet, the comparatively
widespread acceptance of the higher combatant deaths and collateral damage associated with
conventional conflict is more at odds with the basic jus in bello precept of limited war: The moral
legitimacy of targeted killing becomes even clearer when compared to the alternative means of fighting
terror - that is, the massive invasion of the community that shelters and supports the terrorists in an
attempt to catch or kill the terrorists and destroy their [*1054] infrastructure... Hence, targeted killing
is the preferable method not only because, on a utilitarian calculation, it saves lives - a very weighty
moral consideration - but also because it is more commensurate with a fundamental condition of
justified self-defense, namely, that those killed are responsible for the threat posed. n113 Targeted
killing preserves not only the lives of civilians caught up in the conflict by combatants who often
refuse to fight in the open, but also those of the troops who must engage these terrorists. n114 By
directing the use of force at only those individuals who threaten U.S. soldiers and civilians, targeted
killing more efficiently destroys the terrorists' ability to wage war and inflict terror, while ensuring that
collateral damage is kept to a minimum. This is the very essence of limited war as prescribed by jus in
bello.

Target Killing does in fact save lives, using technology rather than troops cuts down both civilian
causalities and soldier causalities.

Subpoint B: Targeted killings should be morally preferred – they kill much less than other methods of
war

Daniel Statman, Department of Philosophy, University of Haifa, “The Morality of Assassination: A reply
to Gross”, Political Studies (2003) vol. 51. pp. 775-779, Ebsco
Third, while assassination does involve some moral risk, it also has a chance of achieving better results
from a moral point of view. Think of a battle in a conventional war against an enemy unit. Assume it can
be won either by bombing the unit from the air, killing 200 soldiers, or by having its headquarters
targeted by an ‘intelligent’ missile, killing most of the commanders of the unit – (and) say, 25 officers. If
both tactics could achieve the same result, then surely the second tactic should be morally preferred.
Similarly, if Bin Laden and 30 of his close partners had been targeted, that would have been far better
than killing thousands of people and causing enormous damage in Afghanistan, in a war whose
contribution to the cessation of world terror is far from clear.
T.Ks do not violate morality, they in fact support it.




                                                                                                          60
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                  Baca/Veeder
Contention 2: Drones are an accurate, effective method of using T.K.s
    Subpoint A: I. The Attack of the Drone
Richard Murphy and Afsheen John Radsan* ARTICLE: DUE PROCESS AND TARGETED KILLING OF
TERRORISTS November, 2009 32 Cardozo L. Rev. 405 Copyright (c) 2009 Yeshiva University
Cardozo Law Review

Suppose President Obama decides to kill a suspected terrorist. The President may use a marvel called
the "Predator drone," a small, unmanned aircraft equipped with surveillance cameras. 1 By Hellfire
missiles launched from the drone, he can kill people thousands of miles away from the White House.
The target does not see or hear the weapon as it is fired. The hit, from far enough away, has the tidiness
of a video game.The United States government has used the Predator with considerable success since
9/11. One important attack occurred in 2002, when a Predator killed a group of al Qaeda members
driving in the Yemeni desert. 2 Their remote location ruled out capture or conventional attack. So the
President or one of his delegates gave an order. Then somebody pushed a button that fired a missile,
killing all the suspects. Among the dead was an American citizen. 3 Did our government mean to kill an
American this way? No one outside the cone of silence knows, and the CIA will neither confirm nor
deny. 4The Yemeni strike provides a dramatic example of "targeted killing," defined here as extra-judicial,
premeditated killing by a state of a specifically identified person not in its custody. States have used this
tool - secretly or not - throughout history. 5 In recent years, targeted killing has generated new
controversy as two states in particular - Israel and the United States - struggle against opponents ...
Predator drones can be used from far distances and still be accurate in eliminating terrorist threats.

Subpoint B: Drones minimize the harms of war
Kalsoom Lakhani, " Drone Attacks: Bombs in The Air Versus Boots on The Ground" July 20, 2009,
Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kalsoom-lakhani/drone-attacks-bombs-in-
th_b_241439.html
If the strategic costs outweigh the tactical benefits, why does the United States continue to champion
such a policy? Upon studying numerous articles and resources, the answer seems to be: because it is
their best worst option. According to an article in last week's Wall Street Journal, "Unlike fighter jets or
cruise missiles, Predators can loiter over their targets for more than 20 hours, take photos in which
men, women and children can be clearly distinguished (burqas can be visible from 20,000 feet) and
deliver laser-guided munitions with low explosive yields. This minimizes the risks of the 'collateral
damage' that often comes from 500-pound bombs." In Pakistan and Afghanistan, where the U.S.
operate the MQ-1 Predator and their more sophisticated successor MQ-9 Reaper drones, the most
impressive thing, noted the Atlantic, is that they fly slow. The news piece elaborated, "That's right, in
counterinsurgency operations, where the goal is to hunt and kill individuals or small groups of fighters --
rather than to attack mass infantry formations -- the slower a plane flies, the better." From a U.S.
standpoint, the use of drones are not only cheaper than conventional planes, they also keep pilots
and American soldiers "out of harm's way," particularly since most UAVs are manned from thousands
of miles away. The Air Force's Predator missions, for instance, are operated by pilots sitting in trailers at
Nellis Air Force base outside Las Vegas, Nevada. In the aforementioned 2006 Atlantic piece, "Hunting
the Taliban in Las Vegas," Robert Kaplan described the inside of one of these trailers, Like sub drivers,
Pred pilots fly blind, using only the visual depiction of their location on a map and math--numerical
readouts indicating latitude, longitude, height, wind speeds, ground elevation, nearby planes, and so
forth. The camera in the rotating ball focuses only on the object under surveillance. The crew's
situational awareness is restricted to the enemy on the ground. Much of the time during a stakeout, the
Pred flies a pre-programmed hexagon, racetrack, bow tie, or some other circular-type holding pattern.
Each trailer holds a two-person crew: a pilot and a "sensor," who operates the ball. Both face half a
dozen computer screens, including map displays and close-up shots of the object under surveillance.

                                                                                                          61
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                  Baca/Veeder
Today, MQ-9 Reapers are slowly replacing the Predators, which are a newer model and more heavily
armed. And, in a sign of growing U.S. support for these drones, the military is spending significant
more money on this technology, from $880 million in 2007 to $2 billion a year. Several sources note
that the strikes have disrupted Al Qaeda's operations, and Dennis Blair, the Director of National
Intelligence, testified to Congress in February that "replacing the loss of key leaders since 2008 in
Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas has proved difficult for Al Qaeda." Someone speaking
from a U.S. national security standpoint would also point out that bombs in the air are a better and
more viable option than boots on the ground.
Drones are highly sophisticated technology that can quickly eliminate a target with minimal causalities.
When in war there WILL be deaths, it is absolutely unavoidable, so why not significantly cut down on the
number of them?


Contention 3: Target killing is needed to avoid extinction.

    Subpoint A: In the face of disaster we must err towards consequentialism.

Sissela Bok, Professor of Philosophy, Brandeis, Applied Ethics and Ethical Theory, Ed. David Rosenthal
and Fudlou Shehadi, 1988

The same argument can be made for Kant's other formulations of the Categorical Imperative: "So act as
to use humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other, always at the same time as
an end, never simply as a means"; and "So act as if you were always through actions a law-making
member in a universal Kingdom of Ends." No one with a concern for humanity could consistently will to
risk eliminating humanity in the person of himself and every other or to risk the death of all members in
a universal Kingdom of Ends for the sake of justice. To risk their collective death for the sake of following
one's conscience would be, as Rawls said, "irrational, crazy." And to say that one did not intend such a
catastrophe, but that one merely failed to stop other persons from bringing it about would be beside
the point when the end of the world was at stake, For although it is true that we cannot be held
responsible for most of the wrongs that others commit, the Latin maxim presents a case where we
would have to take such a responsibility seriously - perhaps to the point of deceiving, bribing, even
killing an innocent person, in order that the world not perish.
When it comes down to it, it is morally acceptable to sacrifice one to save the entirety of humanity.

Subpoint B: Terrorists will escalade if we do not continue to use T.Ks
 CHARLES L. MERCIER, JR. From Parameters, Autumn 1997, pp. 98-118.
Anti-Americanism remains a strong motive for certain groups and organizations to contemplate the use
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the United States and its allies. Retired Ambassador
Morris Busby, former Counterterrorism Coordinator for the US government, warned that rogue states
and subnational groups may now be more inclined than previously to "punish" us with weapons of mass
destruction simply for being who we are. Some believe that the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear
weapons on American soil is a not matter of "if" but when it will happen. As one Senator bluntly
observed, "Americans have every reason to expect a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack before the
decade is over."One source defines terrorists as groups or individuals that conduct "premeditated,
politically motivated violence . . . against noncombatant targets . . . usually intended to influence an
audience." A month rarely goes by without hearing about a terrorist attack somewhere in the world;
after the World Trade Center, Oklahoma City, and the Atlanta Olympics, that world seems to be getting
smaller. And as one of member of the Hezbollah noted, "We are not fighting so that the enemy
recognizes us and offers us something. We are fighting to wipe out the enemy."[8]

                                                                                                          62
SCFI 2011-12
First Version of Aff Cases                                                                  Baca/Veeder
Terrorists have already come close to obtaining WMDs, it’s not very soon before they will be able to
start threatening the use of them. (Not too sure about wording)




Subpoint C: A nuclear or biological terror attack against the US or an ally will happen in less than 2
years—A bioweapon attack would kill at least 40 million

Dave Bohon, Government Panel Predicts WMD Attack by 2013, New American, 6/ 15/10,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3788-government-panel-predicts-wmd-
attack-by-2013]
The official report from a blue-ribbon panel warns that terrorists with weapons of massive destruction
(WMD) are likely to attack somewhere in the world in the next three years, and the United States
could be a prime target. According to the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass
Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, the likelihood is high that by 2013 terrorists will use WMDs in
an attack somewhere in the world, and while several nations with terrorist ties are now in a race to
produce nuclear weapons, the commission’s report says that an attack using biological weapons is the
more likely scenario, with potentially devastating consequences. Among its recommendations, the
commission said it believes that “the U.S. government needs to move more aggressively to limit the
proliferation of biological weapons and reduce the prospect of a bio-terror attack.” The commission, co-
chaired by former U.S. Senators Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Jim Talent (R-Mo.), originally reported its
findings in December 2008. During a June 10 press conference to announce legislation aimed at
addressing dangers from terrorism, members of the commission joined with members of the House
Homeland Security Committee to address the commission’s findings. “The consequences of a biological
attack are almost beyond comprehension,” said former Senator Graham. “It would be 9/11 times ten
or a hundred in terms of the number of people who would be killed.” Noting the millions of Americans
who died as a result of the epidemic flu virus of 1918, Graham predicted that a lab-generated
biological agent in the hands of terrorists could prove far worse. “Today it is still in the laboratory,” he
said, “but if it should get out and into the hands of scientists who knew how to use it for a violent
purpose, we could have multiple times the 40 million people who were killed 100 years ago.” In
December 2008, at the same time the commission presented its findings, former Director of National
Intelligence Mike McConnell offered a similar assessment of the likelihood of a biological attack,
telling a Harvard University audience, “With weapons of mass destruction that could result in the
death of many people — chemical, biological, nuclear — we assess biological as the more likely,”
adding that “it’s better than an even chance in the next five years that an attack by one of those
weapons systems will be conducted in some place on the globe.” While emphasizing the likely
scenario of a biological attack, the commission also warned of the danger that exists of nuclear attacks,
and cited efforts by both Iran and North Korea to produce a nuclear weapon. It also cited the specific
danger that Pakistan poses to the United States, warning that while the country is officially an ally of the
United States, “the next terrorist attack against the United States is likely to originate from within the
Federally Administered Tribal Areas” of Pakistan, which has been identified as a haven for terrorists.
“Were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in
Pakistan,” the report stated. Said Graham, “We think time is not our ally,” warning that the United
States “needs to move with a sense of urgency.”
If we back off these majour terrorist threats and allow them to continue to go about their ways, it will
not be long until they obtain a WMD and use it, likely on the U.S. We need to use Targeted Killing in
order to eliminate these imminent terrorist threats.

                                                                                                         63

								
To top