Raven Neg.1.doc - SCFI by yaoyufang



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

My standard is maximizing net benefits.

I contend that targeted killings lead to collateral damage, innocent civilian deaths.


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


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-

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.


David, Stevens Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing Reprinted from Ethics & International Affairs17, no. 1.
2003 by     Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs

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.

To top