Neg I negate the following resolution. Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. The VALUE implied by the evaluative mechanism of the resolution is MORALITY. Moral permissibility is based on consequences. My standard is maximizing net benefits. I contend that targeted killings lead to collateral damage, innocent civilian deaths. TARGETED KILLINGS ARE UNJUST. David, Stevens Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing Reprinted from Ethics & International Affairs17, no. 1. 2003 by Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs Israel’s policy of targeted killing, stripped of its utilitarian justifications, is retribution, plain and simple. Palestinian suicide bombers seek out the most innocent of Israeli civilians—old men, women, and children— and attempt to kill as many of them as they can. Stopping these operations before they can inflict their horrific harm is of obvious importance and provides some of the justification for targeted killings. We are going for one internal link here – Civilian casualties O. M. Jahagirdar, University of Virginia School of Law, July 2008, “Targeted killing, not assassination: the legal case for the United States to kill terrorist leaders.” Thus far, this article has argued that the US can lawfully kill those foreign leaders who have authorized attacks against the US or pose a substantial threat to US interests. It is essential to explore exactly who can be killed because it is critical that any targeted killing policy not be capricious or whimsical. Being involved in war with a state or an entity does not justify the US in killing any individual, especially those who are in non-military roles and those who are civilians or non-combatants.111 The laws of warwould still apply. The US could not target individuals if the attack were not proportional to the attack inflicted by the US, nor could the US target large numbers of civilians solely to kill one person. In determining whether the laws of war would apply, scholars have noted: Law-of-war criteria for combatancy are designed to determine when a person’s association with or activity related to a party to an armed conflict justifies subjecting that person to the consequences of combatant status under the laws of war….Two important criteria for membership in armed forces are self-identification through the wearing of a uniform or some other distinguishing characteristic, and participation within the command structure of a party to the conflict….Enemy organizations will include some individuals who assist the organization in carrying out attacks, even if they are not formal members of the organization. They would probably include, therefore, bin Laden’s driver, who is accused of picking up and delivering weapons and ammunition to al Qaeda fighters, and of driving bin Laden and other high- ranking al Qaeda members in protective convoys.112 It is immoral to kill innocents in so-called “self-defense.” Jeffrie G. Murphy, Regents' Professor of Law & Philosophy at the Arizona State University College of Law, The Monist, Vol. 57, No. 4 (1973).http://www.ditext.com/murphy/innocent.html What I suggest is the following: If one believes (as I do) that the only even remotely plausible justification for war is self-defense, then one must in waging war confine one's hostility to those against whom one is defending oneself, i.e., those in the (both causal and logical) chain of command or responsibility or agency, all those who can reasonably be regarded as engaged in an attempt to destroy you. If one does not do this, then one cannot be said merely to be defending oneself. And insofar as one is not defending oneself, then one acts immorally in killing one's fellow human beings. The enemy can plausibly be expanded to include all those who are "criminal" accomplices -- those who, in Judge Learned Hand's phrase, have a "stake in the venture."14 But itcannot be expanded to include all those who, like farmers, merely perform actions causally necessary for the attack -- just as in domestic law I cannot plead self-defense if I kill the one (e.g., the wife or mother) who feeds the man who is engaged in an attempt to kill me. TYPES OF TORRORIST KILLINGS. David, Stevens Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing Reprinted from Ethics & International Affairs17, no. 1. 2003 by Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs. Since the eruption of the second intifada in September 2000, Israel has openly pursued a policy of targeted killing. The Israelis have identified, located, and then killed alleged Palestinian terrorists with helicopter gunships, fighter aircraft, tanks, car bombs, booby traps, and bullets. Approximately eighty Palestinian militants and about fifty innocent bystanders have been killed through fall 2002, prompting international condemnation, domestic soul searching, and bloody retaliation. Drones attacks increase terrorist recruiting capabilities Fawaz A. Gerges, professor of middle-eastern politics and international relations at the University of London, May 30th, 2010, Newsweek, “The truth about Drones”,http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/30/the-truth-about- drones.html] In the first four months this year, the Predators fired nearly 60 missiles in Pakistan, about the same number as in Afghanistan, the recognized war theater. In Pakistan, the pace of drone strikes has increased to two or three a week, up roughly fourfold from the Bush years. Although drone strikes have killed more than a dozen Qaeda and Taliban leaders, they have incinerated hundreds of civilians, including women and children. Predator strikes have inflamed anti-American rage among Afghans and Pakistanis, including first or second generation immigrants in the west, as well as elite members of the security services. The Pakistani Taliban and other militants are moving to exploit this anger, vowing to carry out suicide bombings in major U.S. cities. Drone attacks have become a rallying cry for Taliban militants, feeding the flow of volunteers into a small, loose network that is harder to trace even than shadowy Al Qaeda. Jeffrey Addicott, former legal adviser to Army Special Operations, says the strategy is “creating more enemies than we’re killing or capturing.” The Obama administration needs to at least acknowledge the dangers of military escalation and to welcome a real debate about the costs of the drone war. Because clearly, its fallout is reaching home. INEFFECTIVE TARGETED KILLINGS David, Stevens Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing Reprinted from Ethics & International Affairs17, no. 1. 2003 by Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs targeted There are strong arguments that killing is an ineffective and possibly harmful policy. During the second intifada, Israel embarked on more targeted killings than at any time in its history. At the same time, record numbers of Israeli civilians have become victims of Palestinian attacks. It is possible that even more Israeli civilians would have been killed if not for the policy of targeted killing, but given the roughly 600 Israelis killed, it is clear that targeted killing has been unable to stop terrorism.
Pages to are hidden for
"Raven Neg.1.doc - SCFI"Please download to view full document