PART I: TOPIC OVERVIEW.............................................................................................................................. 2
PART II: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 8
PART III: DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 10
PART IV: THE AFFIRMATIVE......................................................................................................................... 12
PART IV—A: SAMPLE AFFIRMATIVE CASE............................................................................................... 13
PART IV—B: AFFIRMATIVE EXTENSIONS/BLOCKS ................................................................................... 15
Targeted Killings Legal............................................................................................................................. 16
Targeted Killings a Beneficial Strategy .................................................................................................... 20
Legal/Moral Standards for Targeted Killing ............................................................................................ 22
PART V: THE NEGATIVE ............................................................................................................................... 26
PART V—A: SAMPLE NEGATIVE CASE ..................................................................................................... 27
PARTT V—B: NEGATIVE EXTENSIONS/BLOCKS ....................................................................................... 29
Targeted Killing Standards Wrong .......................................................................................................... 30
Targeted Killings Not an Effective Strategy............................................................................................. 32
Targeted Killings Cause More Deaths ..................................................................................................... 34
Targeted Killing Immoral ......................................................................................................................... 35
Targeted Killings are Still Murder............................................................................................................ 38
Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
PART I: TOPIC OVERVIEW
Carly Johnson
Whitman College
Introduction
Targeted killings have been used by nations since as far back as the 1970’s. Israel was the first to admit to use this
strategy as a means of self-defense. During the mid and late twentieth century, Israel was really the only country
to use this tactic, but when the “War on Terror” hit, the United States also began to see this as a viable option. The
first time that United States said that they had used targeted killing was in November of 2002. The target was
QaedSalimSinan al-Harethi, a Yemeni man who was supposed to be responsible for the 2000 US Cole bombing.
Since then, the United States has used target killings to take out high ranking al-Qaeda members. Most targeted
killings are done through the use of drones and highly accurate missiles. This allows for the state that is conducting
the targeted killing to take out the target while simultaneously reducing the amount of collateral damage. With
this strategy comes the obvious philosophical and legal debate about whether or not it is right to actively hunt
another person down. This topic asks LD debaters to closely examine the morality behind this method of foreign
policy and self-defense. There are many questions that must be answered in order to engage in this debate. First,
what are the qualifications to be a target? How do the qualifications impact the morality of the action of targeted
killing? Next, under what circumstances should a target be taken out? How can governments ensure that there is
going to be a limited amount of civilian deaths? Is there a way for this to be safe? Further, is a targeted killing
really for the greater good? How do governments decide how many lives are going to be saved with the death of
this one person? Also, how does legality play into the moral discussion of targeted killing? Should it be legal under
international law? Lastly, is there any way to avoid targeted killing becoming about revenge instead of selfdefense? In terms of the topic terms, what does morally permissible actually mean? How is the term “foreign
policy tool” supposed to be understood? All in all, this is a very complex topic and requires a lot of in-depth
understanding of all the intricacies surrounding this topic.
While this may seem overwhelming at first, don’t worry. This brief is designed to open the minds of debaters and
introduce them to the underlining concepts and meanings of the resolution. The first section of this brief is an
essay that has three sub sections. The first section will be a conceptual overview of the key terms within and
dealing with the resolution and their implications. This will give a debater the foundation to decide the direction of
their case. In the second section of this beginning essay, we will discuss affirmative arguments and strategies. The
final section of this section will cover negative strategies and case directions. By the end of the first section of this
brief, a debater should have a good grasp on what the resolution is asking and how to answer the question in an
effective and efficient manner during the debate round. In the second section of the brief, there will be a
discussion of the brief will give sources and a short description of each source to give a debater a baseline for
research. The purpose of this section is to facilitate research; it should not be a debater’s only sources. Branch out
and look at other sources as well. Section three of the brief will have multiple definitions of each of the key terms
in the resolution and how to effectively use each of the definitions provided and how they will fit into either the
negative or the affirmative strategy. The next two following sections will be dedicated to each of the sides of the
resolution. Both the negative and the affirmative sides will have sample cases along with pre-cut evidence and
extensions that can be used in round. It is in high hopes that this brief will make any debater fully understand the
topic at hand and smooth out the research processes as much as possible. Enjoy.
2
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
PART I—A: CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW
As discussed briefly in the introduction of this essay, there are several concepts in this resolution that are in need
of further explanation. This section will elaborate on the underlying meanings behind key concepts in the
resolution in order to give debaters the foundation necessary to write and research their own cases.
One thing that needs to be decided is whether or not the affirmative and negative want to constrain the debate to
a specific country. Currently, the most notable countries that participate in targeted killings are the United States,
Russia, Israel, and Columbia. While there may be other countries that participate in this strategy, these are the
countries that do it the most often. Among those countries, Israel and the United States use this tactic the most.
Therefore, it is possible to limit the debate to either of these countries. Yet, because this is an international issue,
limiting the debate is not one-hundred percent necessary, unless you want to talk about a specific country in order
to narrow the research down. All in all, it is not necessarily a strategic decision to limit the debate and is more
something to do out of convenience.
What are the qualifications of being a targeted killing target? This question will frame a lot of the debate, both for
the negative and the affirmative. In terms of the United States, there is a very long and sophisticated process that
involves looking for other options, checking with other countries and international law. Under this process,
principles of limiting collateral damage, necessity and proportionality are applied when each target is decided.
Further, targets must be seen as a continual threat to America and arrest of the target impossible. This means that
individuals targeted by the United States are done so for national security. Israel applies the same principles that
the United States does when deciding whether or not to kill a target. According to an MSNBC news article from
2006, Daniel Reisner, the head of the International Law branch of the Israel Defense Forces determined six
standards that make a targeted killing legal. They are: “that arrest is impossible; that targets are combatants; that
senior cabinet members approve each attack; that civilian casualties are minimized; that operations are limited to
areas not under Israeli control; and that targets are identified as a future threat.” Obviously, the top two countries
have very specific standards before they authorize a targeted killing. The affirmative can use this information as a
means to prove that it is morally permissible. Each country has done a thorough investigation into the morality of
this issue. They have made it legal, and international law deems this legal, therefore it has to be morally
permissible. Further, one of the main qualifications for doing this is to stop the deaths of innocent people. Saving
more lives is always moral (in the world of the affirmative that is). The negative can look at this and say even if
there has been extensive work done, it is still killing another human. Mistakes can still happen even with these
extensive steps and even with that, the ends never justify the means in terms of killing another human. Further,
law and morality are not always linked so even if it is “legal” that does not deem it “morally permissible.”
The next point that of discussion is similar to the idea of qualifications: is a targeted killing really for the greater
good? The affirmative will obviously want to argue that yes, it is. People are being saved by stopping a mass
terrorist from acting. It is best for a nation to protect its people and therefore the life of one person who is doing
evil is worth the lives of countless innocent people. The negative will want to question how a government can
know how many lives overall a kill will save. What is the calculation? How many specifically are worth the life of
one? Israel wondered this question and actually hired a mathematician to write an equation to solve this problem
for them, yet this was unsuccessful. It then becomes an arbitrary decision to choose who is worth dying and who is
worth living. Because this cannot be repeated in every situation, the morality of targeted killings goes down
severely. There is no way to tell if the death of one (or sometimes more people) through a targeted kill is worth the
life of others in the long run. Further, innocent deaths usually happen during targeted kills because a predator
drones and missiles are used to strike the target. There was a case in Israel where only one floor of a house was hit
in order to save the other floor of civilians. Unfortunately, their intel was wrong and they struck the floor that
actually held the civilians as opposed to the terrorist plotting. It is almost impossible to avoid collateral damage in
strikes like these. Of course, the affirmative can always say back that war causes casualties anyways and that death
is a part of the conflict regardless. Yet, even at that, does that make targeted killings morally permissible? This is
the basis for the negative cases and strategies and something that the affirmative needs to think about while
writing their framework.
3
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
An interesting point that can be drawn in to the last two paragraphs is the idea of deterrence verses revenge. It
appears that all of extensive steps that a government official has to go through to authorize a target killing would
ensure that it is only done for defense purposes. Both Israel and the United States outline that each target must be
seen as a threat and a continual threat to their country. But who decides this? How can you tell? There is a very
fine line between revenge and self-defense. Take for example Osama-Bin Ladin. Was it truly necessary to kill him?
The United States had created a manhunt for him in order to gain a sense of retribution for the damages done on
September 11th. I am not trying to say that Osama was innocent, but that perhaps an arrest could have happened
as opposed to killing him. Yet, the majority of the American populous and perhaps even the government felt that it
was the right thing to do. Further, having targeted killings allows the government to kill an individual without due
process of law. While one of the qualifications state that arrest must be impossible in order to authorize a targeted
killing, how does one decide if the arrest is impossible? There is a lot of room for error on these issues and because
only a few people are in charge of targeted killings, the possibility for a revenge killing or simply wanting to kill
someone without going through the process of a trial is relatively likely. There is very little transparency on these
issues meaning no checks against the people who call for a target kill. The negative can use this to show how it is
not morally permissible because if there is a mistake that happens, there are no ramifications for the individuals.
Yet, the affirmative can say that lack of transparency is good because it ensure that the kill can happen without
individuals being tipped off.
Targeted killings and assassinations are not to be confused. While they may seem to be the same thing (the killing
of a specific person), they are really not. A targeted killing requires a specific government agent to issue the kill.
Next, mass intelligence must be done to ensure that there is no way this person can be arrested. The target must
be dangerous and a threat to a country and also there must be an armed conflict going with the country and the
target. Assassinations on the other hand, are not as precise. In general terms, an assassination is a premeditated
murder, usually for political reasons. Anyone can perform an assassination against just about anyone. Further,
assassinations are illegal whereas targeted killings are legal. There is a “square/rectangle” comparison that does
exist between the two. Like how a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle can never be a square, a targeted killing
can be considered an assassination, but an assassination can never be a targeted killing. The negative still has the
ability to say “but they are assassinations.” The negative really needs to focus on this and think about the
implications of a government sanctioned assassination. What does that look like? How is that moral or legal? Even
though the distinction does exist, the negative needs to point out how arbitrary the distinction really is in the
grand scheme of things.
When looking to the concept of “foreign policy” is that of other countries. Foreign policy entails that these killings
are done by a country in another country. This means that sovereignty needs to be included in the idea of whether
is morally permissible or not. Pakistan provides an excellent example for this chunk of the debate. The United
States in the early and mid 2000’s were conducting targeted killings in Pakistan. Over time, the United States
began to see decreasing results in their attacks. Suspecting that the Pakistani government was tipping off targets,
the United States began conducting strikes without notifying the Pakistani government. This caused a lot of
controversy and is something that debaters need to think about. Is it justified to go into another country and
arbitrarily strike? Sovereignty of that country still needs to be respected to some extent if war is not being declared
on it. The circumstances at that point make targeted killing seemingly less morally permissible than perhaps
striking them in a knowing country.
Moving to the meat of the resolution, morally permissible is a tough term that needs to be worked out.
Functionally, morally permissible means an action that is allowable under moral principles. In terms of debate, this
means that both the negative and the affirmative must set up their own moral code to use within the debate.
(Specific moral philosophies will be discussed in detail under the respective subsections of this essay.) A case
absent a moral framework will be a weak one. The more specific the moral framework is, the better the case
because you can always go back to your morality and say why, under your sense of morality, it is permissible for
“x” reason. Therefore, the debate really becomes about who’s sense of morality is better and for what reasons.
Therefore, it is important to have strong evidence
4
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
PART I—B: AFFIRMATIVE STRATEGIES
Affirmatives are going to need to do a few key things in order to have a strong case. First, they need to frame the
case in such a way to show that targeted killings are done for a specific reason and only under very narrow
circumstances. Next, they are going to want to use a utilitarian mode of morality to frame “morally permissible.”
As for the structure of the case, the affirmative will want to pull information not only on how a targeted killing has
saved lives, but also that it is considered morally permissible in all forms of morality.
To start, the discussion of targeted killing itself is extremely important for the affirmative. There are many authors
that outline specifically what is needed in order for an actual targeted killing to occur. Under these conditions,
targeted killings become a reasonable tactic in order for the country to protect and preserve itself. Further, the
United States and Israel have gone through extensive legal work to ensure that targeted killings are justified under
legal frameworks. Because of all this, we can see that the general public and these countries believe that targeted
killings under specific standards are morally and legally permissible. The affirmative can use that to their advantage
by arguing that the countries that use targeted killings are moral countries and insist upon proper moral standards.
Ultimately, the affirmative is going to need a narrow definition of this term in order to provide a strong case.
Morally permissible, while it is a tough term to define exactly, is the affirmative’s way out in most debates. This
phrase basically entails that “x” action is ok under moral standards, but only in a specific case. This means that the
affirmative doesn’t need to prove that targeted killings are right, just that they are not wrong. The affirmative only
needs to justify that this is an appropriate tool in some cases. Looking back to the definition of targeted killings,
one of the standards is that arrest is impossible. Therefore, this is a last resort option that countries would only use
when/if they absolutely need to. The country as tried to arrest the individual in order to give them due process of
law. Targeted killing is not an alternative to justice in the affirmative world. Instead, targeted killings are a means
of protection when all else has failed. Further, because this is not an alternative to justice, arguments that the
negative may make about targeted killings being driven by revenge are just simply false. A country cannot issue a
targeted killing without first trying all other options to stop the individual from attacking. The next direction that
morally permissible must be looked at is permissible under who’s morality? The affirmative is obviously going to
want to look at utilitarian ethics and moralities in order to answer this question. Bentham and Mills are two
notable utilitarian philosophers that will support the idea of “the greatest good for the greatest number.” This
allows the affirmative to weigh the lives of the individuals saved through targeted killings against the lives lost
during a targeted killing. If a country knows that an individual has planned an attack against them, or is at least
plotting to, it is in the best interest of the country, under a utilitarian framework, to launch an attack and kill the
individual that is planning to do harm against them. A utilitarian ethic would defiantly deem targeted killings as a
morally permissible option for foreign policy. Self-defense is the best way that the affirmative can frame this
debate.
Foreign policy tool isn’t as important to the frameworking of the affirmative case in comparison to morally
permissible. This term means something used in order to promote the interests of “x” country to the international
community. The affirmative needs to look towards the promotion of interests’ aspect of foreign policy. While this
may seem like a bad thing at first, the affirmative can spin this as to actually help the case. Promotion of interests
can be interpreted as protection of self because a county’s main interest (and duty) is to protect its people.
Therefore, if a country’s ability to protect its people is being threatened by a source, then it is a correct foreign
policy tool to issue a targeted killing in order to promote its interest of protection. Framing foreign policy tool like
this will help to avoid arguments from the negative that imply that a country is simply killing people for political or
ideological means. This is about self-defense which is why targeted killings and assassinations are different things.
For the bulk of the case, the affirmative’s job is pretty easy. Contentions need to be about how targeted killings
have actually helped to save lives in the long run. Israel has done some calculations on this and has discovered that
for each terrorist killed, 25 civilian lives were saved. Finding evidence about the accuracy of targeted killings will
also help. There is some collateral damage that happens with targeted killings, but technology is getting better and
the missiles are hitting on target without killing nearby civilians. Further, Israel always attempts to kill a target
5
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
when there are as few civilians around as possible. Another direction that the affirmative can go is that legal equals
morality. This aspect of the strategy relies less on the utilitarian framework because you do not need to prove that
the greater good is being helped if it is already legal. Instead, the affirmative can make parallels between legality
and morality. The heart of this debate lies in what morality is and how it can be related to legal frameworks. Laws
are created to enforce what is right and wrong and morality deals with what is right and what is wrong. Both of
them deal with the same fundamental purpose and are therefore functionally linked. Many authors propose that
targeted killings are morally permissible because of the legal frameworks surrounding the issue.
PART I—C: NEGATIVE STRATEGIES
The negative has so many directions that they can go. Frameworking is important for certain cases in order to
contextualize morally permissible. Negatives can focus on the morality of killing another human, the problems with
having a government sanctioned assassination, lack of transparency, revenge vs. defense and/or the deaths that
happen with targeted killings. If you are leaning towards a more critical outlook, terror talk is a good way to go.
Strategically speaking, negative cases should be short and sweet paired with offensive and defensive blocks against
the affirmative. This does great with the times in LD because you are able to overwhelm the affirmative with
enough arguments to ensure that they will miss something in the first rebuttal.
For straight up cases, negatives will want to adopt a deontological framework. Philosophers such as Kant will be
useful in this debate because they discuss the universality of all things. The ends should never justify the means to
make something a moral act. Instead, according to deontology, all actions must be moral in and of themselves.
This obviously will clash very well against most affirmative cases which will have a utilitarian framework. The first
argument that works well with this framework is that it is never moral to kill another human being. While this is a
bit extreme, it still is something to be argued. Purposely killing an individual is never moral. It may be justified, but
justification and morally permissible are two separate arguments. Justification means that there was a reason for
the action, morally permissible is dealing with rights and wrongs. Just because something is justifiable doesn’t
mean it makes it moral. Deontology also works well with the assassination/targeted killings distinction because the
only real difference is who is doing it and the amount of people that are going to be saved. These conditions
should not make killing an individual person a moral act. The conditions, at best, can be considered a justification,
not something to make it moral. The fact that the same action can be considered a crime just enhances the
justification argument. More specifically, making something moral based on government action is not a just thing
to do. The negative needs to point that out and show how there is no repercussions for targeted killings, whereas
there are punishments for assassinations. At the point where they are functionally the same thing, this shouldn’t
be happening under a deontological framework. In terms of the negative framework, there is no permissible in the
world, only moral and immoral. Further, the negative needs to point out how arbitrary the distinction is between
targeted killing and assassination are, thus strengthening the argument.
Moving away from deontology, negatives can also discuss how there is no way of telling if a kill is for revenge or
self-defense. Whenever a targeted kill is issued, it is usually done in secrecy by the government or governmental
officials for the obvious reasons of protecting intelligence. Therefore, the true reasoning behind the target is never
really revealed. This creates a problem for the affirmative because at the point where you can’t tell if the kill is for
self-defense purposes or not, then the case collapses. At this point, the killing is only seen in terms of justification
as opposed to protection. It is only justified because the government is doing it. If an individual outside of
government protection were to target an individual and kill them, then they would face legal ramifications. But in a
case like this, where the government can do what they’d like, targeted killings can become an excuse to get away
with murder.
The next argument block that negatives need to have is the amount of collateral damage that is done during a
targeted kill. Most targeted kills are done through drones shooting missiles, which do cause other deaths to
happen. At that point, is the affirmative really saving lives if they are killing others through these attacks? This just
feeds into the deontological framework because you’re killing multiple people, some good and bad, in order to
6
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
save how many people? Furthermore, how many people is worth one life on top of the collateral damage? It is
impossible to calculate just how many people will die during the strike or absent the strike. Therefore, the
utilitarian framework falls. If the killing is to take out someone that has committed a crime against the country,
then that falls into the category of a potential killing. No matter how the affirmative tries to spin it, there is no way
to explain that a targeted killing is either worthwhile or not out of revenge.
Further, negative can argue that performing a targeted kill will create a power vacuum. While this may seem like a
good thing (destabilizing the organization), it actually has the potential to create more violence and instability
throughout the region. When a leader is killed, one of two things could happen. One, there is a chain of command
implemented and someone steps up to the plate. This means that the organization is not disrupted and it
continues to functions, meaning no lives are saved in the long run and the affirmative doesn’t solve in this case.
Two, there is no chain of command in which case people begin to fight to take leadership. When this occurs, many
people, both civilian and combatant may/will die. In either case, the affirmative is not saving lives and is causing
more instability, thus showing that the reasoning for moral permissibility fails.
One of the most compelling arguments for the negative is the lack of justice argument. The individuals that are
murdered through targeted killings are not given the opportunity for due process of law. Even if these individuals
have committed a crime, it is still justified to give them the ability to state their case in a court of law. Simply killing
them does not provide the justice that they deserve. In fact, no justice is served in a world where targeted killings
are morally permissible. They should not be morally permissible because people should be given the ability to have
due process. Further, if the affirmative tries to argue that justice is given by killing the person, they are linking into
the revenge argument. The only reason that the person should be the target of a kill is for self-defense. If they are
doing it for justice, then that means it is a revenge killing an immoral. Therefore, this argument puts the affirmative
in a double bind.
7
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
PART II: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abresch, William “Targeted Killing in International Law Review” European Journal of International Law2009 20 (2):
449-453.
This article is a good summary of Nils Melzer’s book Targeted Killing in International Law. The summary
provides good arguments about targeted killings and the legal philosophy behind it. Further, William
Abresch does his own critique of the book and the arguments that Melzer provides. This is a good place
for affirmative and negative research.
Bachmann, Sascha-Dominik Oliver Vladimir and Haeussler, Ulf P., “Targeted Killing as a Means of Asymmetric
Warfare: A Provocative View and Invitation to Debate” Law, Crime & History, Vol. 1 May, 2011.
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1844168
The authors of this article took the time to research and find the most relevant laws and cases on the
subject of targeted killings, compile them together and do a brief analysis of each. This is a good place to
get foundational arguments for the affirmative.
Blumand, Gabriella andHeymann, Philip“Law and Policy of Targeted Killing” Harvard National Security JournalVol
1. 2010 http://www.harvardnsj.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Vol-1_Blum-Heymann_Final.pdf
This article gives a very thorough background on the policy of targeted killings. The authors go into depth
about Israel and the United States’ usage of the policy and how it has worked for both of them. One of
the most interesting parts of this article is that the authors give a framework justification for both
country. This will work well for both the affirmative and negative. Next the article breaks down how the
strategy is beneficial and harmful.
Byman, Daniel L.,PardissKebriaei, Matthew C. Waxman, Kate Clark, “The Targeted Killings Debate.” Council on
Foreign Relations.2011 http://www.cfr.org/international-peace-and-security/targeted-killingsdebate/p25230
The Council on Foreign Relations interviewed four of their top staff members about targeted killings. In
the following publication, these four individuals gave varying opinions on the legitimacy of targeted
killings. Debaters will find basic arguments for both the affirmative and negative side along with links to
other primary documents about the subject.
Clark, Kate “Targeted killings and two worlds in Afghanistan: inside the Takhar attack” AFPAK May 2011
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/11/the_takhar_attack_targeted_killings_and_two_worlds
_in_afghanistan
Kate’s article investigates a miss strike that happened in Afghanistan in 2010. She talks about how civilians
died in the attack and that the United States didn’t even get the right guy. The article brings up a lot of
good questions pertaining to intelligence and whether or not the United States (or any country for that
matter) can be 100% sure that they are killing the right person. This article is great for negative cases.
Epstein Michael. "Targeted Killing Court: Why the United States Needs to Adopt International Legal Standards for
Targeted Killings and How to Do So in a Domestic Court" The Selected Works of Michael Epstein
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/michael_epstein/2
8
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
This article goes indepth about the United States’ policy on targeted killing and how it can be
conceptualized as legal under United States and International law framework. This is a good place for
affirmatives to look for details on the United States policy on targeted killing.
Godfrey, Brenda, “Authorization to Kill Terrorist Leaders and Those Who Harbor Them: An
International Assessment of Defensive Assassination,” San Diego International Law Journal (2003): 492.
Brenda’s article discusses targeted killings in terms of assassination. She examines the legitimacy of a
country performing an assassination during the War on Terror. She uses the United Nations Charter and
the Carolina documents as the legal basis for most of her arguments. This can be used for both affirmative
and negative research, but negatives will have better luck with this article than affirmatives.
Jaeger David A. and M. Daniele Paserman “The Shape of Things to Come? On the Dynamics of Suicide Attacks and
Targeted Killings” Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2009, 4: 315–342
This article does into a lot of different arguments. First, the authors talk about how targeted killings and
suicide bombings are similar strategies and motivated by relatively the same things. This article also
simplifies the legal aspect of targeted killing very well. This is a great place for looking for base arguments
and for understanding the topic as a whole.
Kretzmer, David, “Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or
Legitimate Means of Defence?”The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 No. 2 (2005): 174.
David’s article goes into a very in-depth analysis of how targeted killings fit into the framework of
international law. He looks at both International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights and
uses both to do a thorough analysis of each and how targeted killings function under each. This is a great
place for both negative and affirmative research because Kretzmer asks critical questions about the
underlying assumptions of some of the legal decisions relating to targeted killings and also provides a
different framework to support the action.
Patterson, Eric. Just War Thinking: Morality and Pragmatism in the Struggle Against Contemporary Threats.
Lanham: Lexington Books, 2007
Eric Patterson’s book applies the just war theory to the modern day enemy: the terrorist. In this book, he
discusses what the standards for war and violence are. He also talks about how targeted killings fit into
the just war theory framework. This is a good place for affirmatives to look because he believes that
targeted killings do fit within just war theory.
Waldron, Jeremy “Targeted Killing” London Review of Books Blog, May 2011
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2011/05/07/jeremy-waldron/targeted-killing/
Jeremy brings up many good points about the philosophical assumptions surrounding targeted killings,
especially when looking at self-defense. He discusses the implications of viewing the killing of Osama as
“justice” and how targeted killings can be based in revenge. This is a good article for negative research.
9
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
PART III: DEFINITIONS
With this resolution, definitions are extremely important. The following section will breakdown the terms and offer
multiple definitions for each word. The specific phrase of “morally permissible” will be broken down, defining each
individual word of the phrase and offering definitions that include the entirety of the phrase. Following the
definitions will be a brief discussion of how to pair definitions together and what works best for each side of the
resolution.
Targeted killing
Definition: “the intentional killing of a specific civilian or unlawful combatant who cannot reasonably be
apprehended, who is taking a direct part in hostilities, the targeting done at the direction of the state, in the
context of an international or non-international armed conflict”
Source: Gary D. Solis, LL.M at George Washington University Law School, Ph. D, London School of Economics and
Political Science, The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War
Definition: “The use of lethal force attributable to a subject of international law with the intent, premeditation and
deliberation to kill individually selected persons who are not in the physical custody of those targeting them
Source: Nils Melzer, Ph. D in law from the University of Zurich, Targeted Killing in International Law
Definition: “Premeditated killing of an individual by a government or its agents”
Source: William C. Banks, J.D., University of Denver, and Peter Raven-Hansen, J.D., Harvard University, “Targeted
Killing and Assassination: The U.S. Legal Framework,” U. Richmond L. Rev.
Discussion: As you can see, there is no “dictionary definition” of targeted killing. Therefore, debaters are going to
have to look towards authors who have written about the subject and use their guidelines for what a targeted
killing can be considered. Interestingly enough, there is no international definition of what a targeted killing is even
though this is an international issue. In terms of case construction, the affirmative will want to have the narrowest
definition of what a targeted killing is. I would suggest using Solis’s definition because it provides five standards for
a targeted killing. With this, the affirmative can claim that it is morally permissible only under these limited
conditions. The negative will want a more broad definition simply because they can claim that almost anything can
be considered a targeted killing and that countries will just kill people without really a care for their rights. The
Banks and Raven-Hansen definition will do well for the negative because it is so broad. Because there is no
international definition, it will be important to focus on what a targeted killing is for framework purposes.
Morally permissible
Definition (morally): “with respect to moral principles”
Source: Princeton Wordnet
Definition (morally): “In respect of moral character or conduct; from the point of view of morality; with reference
to moral responsibility”
Source: Oxford English Dictionary
Definition (morally): “In accordance with morality; virtuously”
Source: Oxford English Dictionary
Definition (permissible): “That can or ought to be permitted; allowable”
10
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Source: Oxford English Dictionary
Definition (permissible): “that may be accepted or conceded”
Source: Princeton Wordnet
Definition (permissible): “that may be permitted, allowable”
Source: Merriam Webster
Discussion: From these separated definitions, morally permissible can be understood as something that is
accepted or permitted under moral principles. I think that it is important for debaters to have secondary definition
of what permitted and moral mean, or at least give a detailed analysis as to what these two words mean. Without
that, then the definition is vague and does not provide the in depth discussion and framework necessary to have a
strong case. The affirmative is going to want to spin the concept of morally permissible as not proving that it is
right, but just that it is not wrong. Therefore, killing an individual may not be right, but under the circumstances, it
is better to save lives by killing one than it is to knowingly let innocent people die. The negative will obviously want
to focus on the morality of killing one person and that the ends never justify the means.
Foreign policy tool
Definition (foreign policy): “the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states”
Source: Merriam Webster
Definition (foreign policy): “a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve
national objectives”
Source: Dictionary.com
Definition (foreign policy): “General objectives that guide the activities and relationships of one state in its
interactions with other states. The development of foreign policy is influenced by domestic considerations, the
policies or behavior of other states, or plans to advance specific geopolitical designs”
Source: Britannica Encyclopedia
Definition (tool): “Anything used in the manner of a tool; a thing (concrete or abstract) with which some operation
is performed; a means of effecting something; an instrument.”
Source: Oxford English Dictionary
Discussion: A foreign policy tool is something that a country does in order to promote its own interests throughout
the international community. Countries need to be able to work with one another in order to survive in an
increasingly globalized world. The resolution is asking if targeted killings are a morally permissible option of a
country to use when needing to promote its own interests. The actual definition of foreign policy tool is not
necessary to either side for frameworking, but it nice to have in order to contextualize the resolutions. Affirmative
will want to focus on the “promotion of interest” aspect of foreign policy in order to have access to self-defense
claims.
11
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
PART IV: THE AFFIRMATIVE
12
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
PART IV—A: SAMPLE AFFIRMATIVE CASE
Definitions
Targeted Killing: “the intentional killing of a specific civilian or unlawful combatant who cannot reasonably be
apprehended, who is taking a direct part in hostilities, the targeting done at the direction of the state, in the
context of an international or non-international armed conflict” (Gary D. Solis, LL.M at George Washington
University Law School, Ph. D, London School of Economics and Political Science, The Law of Armed Conflict:
International Humanitarian Law in War). Targeted killing is not some random assassination. It takes extremely
specific criteria to become a target. Therefore states will only use this as a means of self-defense and only as a last
resort. Under this definition, all rights of the enemy are taken into consideration and respected to its fullest.
Morally Permissible: That can or ought to be permitted; allowable with respect to moral principles (Oxford English
Dictionary and Princeton Wordnet) Morally permissible means that under a framework of morality, an action is
allowed to happen. This means that the affirmative doesn’t have to prove that targeted killings are right or just.
The affirmative only has to show that targeted killings are not wrong. The negative must prove and show that
targeted killings are never permissible in any case.
Value: Societal welfare
My value for this round is that of social welfare which can be defined as the maximum amount of prosperity, peace
and heath of the nation. It is the purpose of the government and laws to ensure that their people are able to live
happy and productive lives without the fear of coercion, loss of freedom or violence.
Criterion: Utilitarianism
My criterion for the round is that of utilitarianism: the greatest good for the greatest number. In order for a
government to ensure societal welfare, they must protect and ensure the safety for as many people as possible.
Even if some individuals do lose out as a result, it is always preferable to save the many over the few because the
government must protect as many people as possible. Targeted killings takes the lives of a few in order to ensure
the safety and the wellbeing of the society.
Contention One:
A) Devastates the group by removing a leader and forcing a weaker one into power
Daniel L. Byman, Ph.D. MIT, Political Science, “The Targeted Killings Debate.” Council on Foreign
Relations.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.
B) Strikes take out skilled members
Daniel L. Byman, Ph.D. MIT, Political Science, “The Targeted Killings Debate.” Council on Foreign
Relations.2011 http://www.cfr.org/international-peace-and-security/targeted-killings-debate/p25230
Less dramatic, but no less important, is a campaign against lieutenants and bomb-makers, passportforgers, 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 bombmakers 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.
13
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
C) Israel proves: slowed down Palestinian terrorists
Steven R. David, Ph.D Harvard University, “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing.” The BeginSadat Center for Strategic Studies: Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 51 (September 2002): 2.
Targeted killings have impeded the effectiveness of Palestinian terrorist organizations where
leadership, planning, and tactical skills are confined to a few key individuals. There are a limited
number of people who have the technical ability to make bombs and plan attacks. If these people are
eliminated, the ability to mount attacks is degraded. There is some evidence that targeted killings have
reduced the performance of Palestinian operations. The large number of intercepted suicide bombers
(Israelis estimate they stop over 80 percent of attempts) and poorly planned attacks (e.g. suicide
bombers who appear with wires sticking out of their bag or detonations that occur with little loss of
life) indicates that there are problems either with the organization of the operations or those available
to carry them out. There are individual leaders whose charisma and organizational skills keep a group
together. If they are eliminated, they are not easily replaced. Shikaki of the Islamic Jihad falls into this
category
D) Save people in the long run
David Kretzmer, J.D., York University “Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions
or Legitimate Means of Defence?”The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 No. 2 2005: 174.
When there is strong evidence that the suspected terrorist is actually planning terrorist attacks against
the victim state, and there is no feasible way of preventing those attacks by apprehending or arresting
him, targeting him would not necessarily be regarded as an arbitrary deprivation of life. In such a case
the unlawful violence might not be imminent, but the need to use lethal force in order to prevent that
violence might be immediate, since if such force is not used notw it may not be possible to prevent the
violence later. This may be what has been termed the last window of opportunity to frustrate further
terrorist attacks
14
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
PART IV—B: AFFIRMATIVE EXTENSIONS/BLOCKS
15
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Targeted Killings Legal
Accusations of illegitimacy and illegality are false
Matthew C.Waxman, J.D., Yale, “The Targeted Killings Debate.” Council on Foreign Relations.2011
http://www.cfr.org/international-peace-and-security/targeted-killings-debate/p25230
U.S. strikes against senior al-Qaeda or affiliated terrorists in places like Pakistan or Yemen--most recently, the
reported (but unverified) killing of al-Qaeda-linked Pakistani militant Ilyas Kashmiri (Reuters)--often give rise to
accusations that the United States is engaged in unlawful "extrajudicial killing," "assassination," or violations of
sovereignty. In part because of the secrecy surrounding these policies, such legal claims often don't get thoroughly
and specifically answered. However, lethal force directed against particular individuals outside a combat zone
like Afghanistan is legally and strategically appropriate in limited circumstances.
Osama attack and Pakistan strikes both check out as legal
Matthew C.Waxman, J.D., Yale, “The Targeted Killings Debate.” Council on Foreign Relations.2011
http://www.cfr.org/international-peace-and-security/targeted-killings-debate/p25230
Legal constraints on U.S. actions include respect for state sovereignty (limiting where and under what conditions
the United States could target) and law-of-war principles such as proportionality and distinction (limiting when
and how the United States could target). Applying these frameworks to the recent raid on Osama bin Laden, as
Koh did publicly recently, the United States has a strong argument that he could be targeted as an enemy
commander in the ongoing armed conflict with al-Qaeda. U.S. actions in Pakistan's territory were also defensible
because the Pakistani government was not capable or willing to deal with this threat. So far as I can tell from
available information, the operation was planned and carried out in strict accordance with the laws of war,
including due care to protect innocent civilians and rules regarding surrender.
Human Rights Committee supports only if it is a last resort option
David Kretzmer, J.D., York University “Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or
Legitimate Means of Defense?”The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 No. 2 2005: 174.
The Human Rights Committee is of the opinion that targeted killings of suspected terrorists in the Occupied
Territories only raise issues under Article 6, when they are used as a deterrent or punishment, and not,
presumably, when they are used as a pre-emptive preventive measure. On the other hand, in its
recommendation, the Committee refers to use of deadly force against a ‘person suspected of being in the
process of committing acts of terror.’ This would seem to imply that the Committee adopts the approach that
preventive force may only be used in the face of an imminent attack, which cannot be halted by arresting the
perpetrator.
Targeted killing of Saddam was legitimate
Eric Patterson, Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California at Santa BarbaraJust War Thinking:
Morality and Pragmatism in the Struggle against Contemporary Threats Lexington Books: 2007
Did this attack meet the standard of jus in bello? Yes. The targeted strike against Saddam Hussein was justified in
that it was proportionate to the threat of weapons of mass destruction and as an attempt to save lives. Had
Saddam been killed, there is little doubt that his military and security apparatus would have melted away, as
indeed they did after about two weeks of fighting. A successful targeted killing would have prevented civilian
casualties and saved the lives of common soldiers in both armies, including large numbers of Iraqi conscripts
who did not want to fight in the first place
16
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Legal under international humanitarian law only as last resort
William Abresch, Director, Project on Extrajudicial Executions Center of Human Rights and Global Justice, NYU
Law “Targeted Killing in International Law Review” European Journal of International Law2009 20 (2): 449-453.
Melzer, however, moves beyond the conventional wisdom by providing a strong argument that, as a principle of
humanitarian law, military necessity imposes restrictions on military action additional to those restrictions
codified in IHL treaties. The proliferation of treaties codifying the norms of IHL should not, he insists, lead us to
disregard IHL's fundamental sources. Thus, ‘the principle of military necessity reduces the sum total of lawful
military action from that which IHL does not prohibit in abstracto to that which is actually required in concreto’
(at 286). On this basis, he concludes that, while IHL does not prohibit attacks on combatants or civilians directly
participating in hostilities, such attacks are permitted only when required by military necessity. The gratuitous
or superfluous killing of combatants is forbidden even in the midst of hostilities. The principle of military
necessity would, then, prohibit the targeted killing of a military commander when it would not be unreasonably
risky to capture him instead.
Justified under international humanitarian law
William Abresch, Director, Project on Extrajudicial Executions Center of Human Rights and Global Justice, NYU
Law “Targeted Killing in International Law Review” European Journal of International Law2009 20 (2): 449-453.
Cohen and Shany contend that under IHL ‘combatants may be targeted even if less-injurious alternatives are
available’ and find the HCJ's attempt to temper this permissive rule with human rights norms to be ‘at best,
unsubstantiated and probably also inaccurate’. The common ground shared by proponents and opponents of a
non-lethal alternative test is that IHL, taken alone, permits attacks even when a non-lethal alternative is available.
Thus, although he concurs with this aspect of the HCJ's decision, Milanovic has written that ‘the rule of
humanitarian law is very clear; states have quite deliberately left themselves the freedom to kill combatants, or
civilians engaged in hostilities, and are under no obligation to capture them and put them on trial instead’.
Given this shared understanding of what is required by IHL, the narrow question whether targeted killing is
permitted only when there is no non-lethal alternative has been entangled in the much broader debate over the
relationship between the human rights law and IHL regimes.
Three cases in which targeted killing legitimate
David Kretzmer, J.D., York University “Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or
Legitimate Means of Defence?”The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 No. 2 2005: 174.
When then may a state use lethal force against suspected terrorists? It seems that there are three possible
approaches to this question: A)Restricting the exceptions to the right to life (whether under Article 2(2) of the
European Convention, or the ‘arbitrary’ deprivation escape clause in the ICCPR and American and African
Conventions) to cases in which lethal force is used to thwart an imminent attack. Absent immanency, preemptive targeting of a suspected terrorist will be regarded as not being absolutely necessary, or as an arbitrary
deprecation of life, not matter how strong the evidence that he is planning further terrorist attacks and how
high the probability that there may not be another opportunity to prevent such attacks. B) Allowing the
targeting in the very restricted circumstances in which apprehending or arresting the suspected terrorist is
involved in executing or planning a terrorist attack and there is a well-founded fear that other means of
preventing that attack are likely to fail. I have already described the difficulties of this approach. I shall return to it
below. C) Positing that the law-enforcement model, which lies at the basis of the treaty provisions on the right
to life, does not provide an adequate answer to the issue of transnational terror. When the terror is intense,
organized and protracted, the appropriate model should be the armed conflict model, which is not based on
notions of imminent danger from the specific person targeted, but on notions of the danger posed by the group
to which the person belongs
17
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
International Court of Justice supports targeted killings
David Kretzmer, J.D., York University “Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or
Legitimate Means of Defence?”The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 No. 2 2005: 174.
The ICJ rejected the argument that the ICCPR ceases to apply in times of war. It added: ‘In principle, the right to
not arbitrarily to be deprived of one’s life applies also in hostilities. The test of what is an arbitrary deprivation
of life, however, then falls to be determined by the applicable lexspecialis, namely, the law applicable in armed
conflict, which is designed to regulate the conduct of hostilities. Thus, whether a particular loss of life, through
the use of a certain weapon in warfare, is to be considered an arbitrary deprivation of life contrary to Article 6 of
the Covenant can only be decided by reference to the law applicable in armed conflict and not deduced from the
terms of the Covenant itself.’ The implications of this theory in the present context seem clear. If the targeted
killings take place within the context of an armed conflict between the victim state and the terrorist group, or
the states that harbor or host it, their legality will have to be decided on the basis of international humanitarian
law. If such killings are permitted under IHL, they will not be regarded as arbitrary deprivations of life under
Article 6 of the ICCPR
Targeted killings are justifiable self-defense
Vincent –Joel Proulx, Professor of Law at New York University, January 2006, “If the Hat Fits, Wear It, If the
Turban Fits, Run for Your Life,” Hastings Law Journal http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=877226
Much has been written on the issue of targeted killing, both in favor and against such a policy. Many compelling
arguments have been advanced in legal scholarship. For example, several commentators expound that, under
certain circumstances, targeted killing may be interpreted as a legitimate exercise of the inherent right to selfdefense under international law. Although it is fair to assert that targeted killing can, at best, only be reconciled
tenuously with the extant international framework, it has been argued that a logic of anticipatory self-defense
could also justify such practice. In this spirit, it has sometimes been advocated that targeted killing is the most
attractive remedy in forestalling terrorist activities. Even though the conceptual difference between “targeted
killing” and “assassination” has engendered confusion, influential voices argue that killing terrorists is a lawful
exercise of military activity, as opposed to assassination, which necessarily entails removing civilian political
leaders for political purposes1 In fact, several American presidents have endorsed the idea of targeted killing
and, consequently, enticed the Department of Defense to develop a guiding policy on this issue. For instance,
President Clinton reportedly vetted Osama bin Laden’s capture or death.
Targeted killing not a substitute for law enforcement
Sascha-Dominik Oliver Vladimir Bachmann, University of Portsmouth Ulf Haeussler, National Defense
University, Targeted Killing as a Means of Asymmetric Warfare: A Provocative View and Invitation to Debate (May,
17 2011). Law, Crime & History, Vol. 1, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=184416
Further reports also mentioned the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) by the US to target Taliban and al–
Qaeda operatives in the tribal area of Pakistan, and to target al– Qaeda operatives in Yemen. One author has
expressed criticism and labeled this practice as an “extra– judicial execution‟. Whilst this label is inappropriate
for targeted killings occurring in armed conflict and legally equivalent situations, it aptly captures cases in which
totalitarian regimes have used this method to eliminate members of the opposition, e.g. by death squads.
“Extrajudicial executions‟ in the latter sense violate the right to life and to due process of law, provided it
amounts to: …an unlawful and deliberate killing carried out by order of a government or with its
acquiescence…which can reasonably be assumed to be the result of a policy at any level of government to
eliminate specific individuals as an alternative to arresting them and bringing them to justice. This being said, the
UN Special Rapporteur charged with investigating such cases nevertheless misperceives his or her mandate when
he or she analyses the practice of legitimate international military operations under the same paradigm. There is a
huge difference between targeted killings as a surrogate for law enforcement and targeted killings as a method
of warfare.
18
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
UN supports “War on Terror” framework making targeted killings legal
Michael Epstein. Michigan State University College of Law "Targeted Killing Court: Why the United States Needs
to Adopt International Legal Standards for Targeted Killings and How to Do So in a Domestic Court" 2011.The
Selected Works of Michael Epstein
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/michael_epstein/2
The United Nations arguably laid the groundwork for the U.S.’s initial justifications for the “war on terror” when
it connected the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to the inherent right of self-defense from armed attack under Article
51 of the UN Charter. On September 12, 2001, the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 1368, which stated that
“The Security Council, Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, Determined
to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, Recognizing the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter, 1. Unequivocally condemns
in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York,
Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to
international peace and security;. . . . “Soon after, Congress passed the Authorization of Use of Military Force
against Terrorism, which authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks
that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future
acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. The Preamble
to the AUMF echoed the right of self-defense inherent in the U.N. Charter, and asserted that the 9/11 attacks
“render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to
protect United States citizens both at home and abroad . . . .” Thus Congress implicitly empowered the President
to act not only with its approval, but under a right guaranteed by the U.N. Charter and thus international
customary law. The use of the AUMF as self-defense against terrorists as part of an armed conflict with such has
been confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Targeted killings are legally not seen as “extra-judicial” killings
Michael Epstein. Michigan State University College of Law "Targeted Killing Court: Why the United States Needs
to Adopt International Legal Standards for Targeted Killings and How to Do So in a Domestic Court" 2011.The
Selected Works of Michael Epstein
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/michael_epstein/2
In a speech to the American Society of International Law, Harold Koh, the Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of
State, laid out the Obama Administration’s stance on International Law. Koh stated that the United States,
under international law, is engaged in armed combat with the Taliban and al-Qaeda as a response to the 9/11
attacks under the right to self-defense inherent in international law. Domestically, Koh pointed to the AUMF as
the Congressional authorization of force against the terrorist actors. On both fronts, Koh argued that the U.S. was
justified as a measure of self-defense in targeting al-Qaeda leaders involved in the planning of future attacks.
Koh stated that the Obama Administration, in response to the inherent difficulty of targeting terrorists who hide
among civilian populations, carefully studied and follows the law of war targeting principles of distinction and
proportionality. In response to the numerous legal objections that have been raised against the Obama
Administration’s use of drones in carrying out target combat strikes, Koh stated that the Administration did not
believe that the acts of targeting or using advanced weapon systems were themselves per se violations of
international law. In response to criticisms that the attacks were “unlawful extrajudicial killings,” Koh asserted
that “a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets
with legal process before the state may use lethal force.”
19
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Targeted Killings a Beneficial Strategy
Devastates the group by removing a leader and forcing a weaker one into power
Daniel L. Byman, Ph.D. MIT, Political Science, “The Targeted Killings Debate.” Council on Foreign
Relations.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.
Strikes take out skilled members
Daniel L. Byman, Ph.D. MIT, Political Science, “The Targeted Killings Debate.” Council on Foreign
Relations.2011 http://www.cfr.org/international-peace-and-security/targeted-killings-debate/p25230
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.
Cannot ignore the benefits of the strategy just for human rights reason
David Kretzmer, J.D., York University “Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or
Legitimate Means of Defence?”The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 No. 2 2005: 174.
Granting license to state authorities to kill suspected enemies of the state cannot appeal to anyone sensitive to
human rights and suspicious of the uses and abuses of state power. On the other hand, one cannot simply
dismiss out of hand the parallel drawn by the states involved between legitimate killing of enemy combatants
during an armed conflict and the targeting of active members of terrorist organizations that have, for all intents
and purposes, declared war on those states
Israel proves: slowed down Palestinian terrorists
Steven R. David, Ph.D Harvard University, “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing.” The Begin-Sadat
Center for Strategic Studies: Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 51 (September 2002): 2.
Targeted killings have impeded the effectiveness of Palestinian terrorist organizations where leadership,
planning, and tactical skills are confined to a few key individuals. There are a limited number of people who
have the technical ability to make bombs and plan attacks. If these people are eliminated, the ability to mount
attacks is degraded. There is some evidence that targeted killings have reduced the performance of Palestinian
operations. The large number of intercepted suicide bombers (Israelis estimate they stop over 80 percent of
attempts) and poorly planned attacks (e.g. suicide bombers who appear with wires sticking out of their bag or
detonations that occur with little loss of life) indicates that there are problems either with the organization of
the operations or those available to carry them out. There are individual leaders whose charisma and
organizational skills keep a group together. If they are eliminated, they are not easily replaced. Shikaki of the
Islamic Jihad falls into this category
20
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Save people in the long run
David Kretzmer, J.D., York University “Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or
Legitimate Means of Defence?”The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 No. 2 2005: 174.
When there is strong evidence that the suspected terrorist is actually planning terrorist attacks against the
victim state, and there is no feasible way of preventing those attacks by apprehending or arresting him,
targeting him would not necessarily be regarded as an arbitrary deprivation of life. In such a case the unlawful
violence might not be imminent, but the need to use lethal force in order to prevent that violence might be
immediate, since if such force is not used notw it may not be possible to prevent the violence later. This may be
what has been termed the last window of opportunity to frustrate further terrorist attacks
Most efficient way to defend against terrorism
Steven R. David, Ph.D Harvard University, “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing.” The Begin-Sadat
Center for Strategic Studies: Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 51 (September 2002): 2.
There is no question that Israel's policy of targeted killing has hurt the capability of its Arab adversaries to
prosecute attacks against Israel. Terrorism is essentially an offensive action, making counter-offensive actions
such as targeted killing an especially effective response. It is exceedingly difficult for Israel to defend itself from
terror attacks or to deter terror attacks by Palestinians. In terms of defense, there are literally tens of thousands
of targets in Israel for Palestinian terrorists. Power stations, government bureaus, bus depots, airports,
skyscrapers, open-air markets and sport stadiums—the list is endless. It is impossible to defend them all,
especially against a determined adversary that can choose the time and place of attack. Although, as discussed
below, some level of deterrence of terrorism is achievable, dissuading potential terrorists is not easy when they
are eager to die for their cause. In such situations, the best response to terrorism is to go on a counter-offensive,
that is, to eliminate the terrorist threat before it can be launched. One of the most successful means of
eliminating terrorists before they can strike is the policy of targeted killing
Historically used to protect American citizens when other countries wouldn’t
Gabriella Blumand, S.J.D.Harvard Law SchoolPhilip Heymann, Harvard Law School J.D.“Law and Policy of
Targeted Killing” Harvard National Security JournalVol 1.2010
The Parks memorandum addresses the question of lawful targeting and unlawful assassinations in peacetime, and
argues the following: “The use of force in peacetime is limited by the previously cited article 2(4) of the Charter
of the United Nations. However, article 51 of the Charter recognizes the inherent right of self-defense of
nations. Historically, the United States has resorted to the use of military force in peacetime where another
nation has failed to discharge its international responsibilities in protecting U.S. citizens from acts of violence
originating in or launched from its sovereign territory, or has been culpable in aiding and abetting international
criminal activities.” Parks goes on to give the examples of an 1804–1805 Marine expedition into Libya to capture
or kill the Barbary pirates; a year-long campaign in 1916 into Mexico to capture or kill the Mexican bandit
Pancho Villa following Villa’s attack on Columbus, New Mexico; the 1928–1932 U.S. Marines’ campaign to
capture or kill the Nicaraguan bandit leader Augusto Cesar Sandino; the Army’s assistance in 1967 to the
Bolivian Army in its campaign to capture or kill Ernesto “Che” Guevara; the forcing down in 1985 of an Egypt Air
plane in Sicily, in an attempt to prevent the escape of the AchilleLauro hijackers; and the 1986 attacks on
terrorist-related targets in Libya. These historical precedents, claims Parks, support the interpretation of the
United Nations Charter as authorizing the use of military force to capture or kill individuals whose peacetime
actions constitute a direct threat to U.S. citizens or national security. In a footnote, he adds: “In the employment
of military force, the phrase “capture or kill” carries the same meaning or connotation in peacetime as it does in
wartime. There is no obligation to capture rather than attack the enemy. In some cases, it may be preferable to
utilize ground forces to capture (e.g.) a known terrorist. However, where the risk to U.S. forces is deemed too
great . . . it would be legally permissible to employ (e.g.) an air strike against that individual or group rather than
attempt his, her, or their capture, and would not constitute assassination”
21
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Legal/Moral Standards for Targeted Killing
Targeted killings fall under two paradigms
William Abresch, Director, Project on Extrajudicial Executions Center of Human Rights and Global Justice, NYU
Law “Targeted Killing in International Law Review” European Journal of International Law2009 20 (2): 449-453.
Melzer posits that the legal regulation of targeted killing should be understood to comprise two normative
paradigms. The ‘hostilities paradigm’ governs the targeted killing, as an integral part of the conduct of
hostilities, of any person ‘not entitled to protection against direct attack’ (at 426) – i.e., a combatant or a civilian
directly participating in hostilities. All other targeted killings, whether at home or abroad, are governed by the
‘law enforcement paradigm’. This distinction does not turn on the existence of an armed conflict: The targeted
killing of a civilian who is not directly participating in hostilities will fall within the law enforcement paradigm
even if it takes place in the midst of an armed conflict. Neither may this distinction be fully reduced to that
between international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
Both international humanitarian law and human rights law fit with targeted killings
William Abresch, Director, Project on Extrajudicial Executions Center of Human Rights and Global Justice, NYU
Law “Targeted Killing in International Law Review” European Journal of International Law2009 20 (2): 449-453.
Because Melzer considers IHL provisions on the conduct of hostilities, when they apply, to constitute a
lexspecialis to human rights norms on the use of force, his analysis of the hostilities paradigm is dominated by
humanitarian law, and his analysis of the law enforcement paradigm is dominated by human rights law.
However, because he rejects a categorical confinement of IHL to ‘wartime’ or of human rights law to
‘peacetime’, he does include chapters on the relevance of IHL within the law enforcement paradigm and of
human rights law within the hostilities paradigm.This principled division of the analysis into two paradigms in
line with what is likely to be the majority view on the question of how the human rights and IHL regimes interact
is a fruitful move which lays the groundwork for a clear and cogent interpretation of the law.
Two standards to use when discussing legality of targeted killings
William Abresch, Director, Project on Extrajudicial Executions Center of Human Rights and Global Justice, NYU
Law “Targeted Killing in International Law Review” European Journal of International Law2009 20 (2): 449-453.
Keeping his single definition in view, Melzer analyses each paradigm in turn, identifying criteria for lawful targeted
killing under each. He concludes that a targeted killing that falls within the law enforcement paradigm must have
a legal basis in domestic law, be preventative rather than punitive, have protecting human life from unlawful
attack by the target as its exclusive purpose, ‘be absolutely necessary in qualitative, quantitative and temporal
terms for the achievement of this purpose’, and be the undesired outcome of an operation planned and
conducted to minimize recourse to lethal force (at 423). In contrast, with respect to a targeted killing that falls
within the hostilities paradigm, he concludes that it must be ‘likely to contribute effectively to the achievement
of a concrete and direct military advantage without there being an equivalent non-lethal alternative’, not be
directed against a civilian or other individual entitled to protection against direct attack, abide by the
requirement of proportionality with respect to collateral damage, ‘be planned and conducted so as to avoid
erroneous targeting’ and otherwise comply with the precautionary measures required by IHL, ‘be suspended
when the targeted individual surrenders or otherwise falls hors de combat, regardless of the practicability of
capture and evacuation’, ‘not be conducted by undercover forces feigning non-combatant status or otherwise by
resort to perfidy’, and ‘not be conducted by resort to poison, expanding bullets or other prohibited weapons
and must respect the restrictions imposed by IHL on booby-traps and other devices’ (at 426–427)
22
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Only morally permissible if there are no other alternatives
William Abresch, Director, Project on Extrajudicial Executions Center of Human Rights and Global Justice, NYU
Law “Targeted Killing in International Law Review” European Journal of International Law2009 20 (2): 449-453.
His conclusion that a targeted killing is impermissible when there is a ‘non-lethal alternative which would entail
a comparable military advantage without unreasonably increasing the risk to the operating forces or the civilian
population’ is far from novel (at 397). Indeed, in its landmark decision on targeted killing, Israel's High Court of
Justice (HCJ) similarly held that ‘a civilian taking a direct part in hostilities cannot be attacked … if a less harmful
means can be employed’. The HCJ justified this conclusion by reference to the human rights norm that lethal
force would violate the right to life unless its use were ‘absolutely necessary’ to, inter alia, defend a person from
unlawful violence. This ‘mixed model’ approach in which the use of force is constrained simultaneously by norms
drawn from IHL and from human rights law had previously been developed by scholars. The concept is, in sum,
that IHL limits the permissible targets of attack to combatants and civilians directly participating in hostilities
and that human rights law further limits the use of force against these targets to that which is absolutely
necessary under the circumstances. If a group of commandos, for example, were to encounter a rebel
commander shopping, unarmed, in the capital, they would be obligated to capture him rather than kill him,
notwithstanding his combatant status.
Law-enforcement model allows for targeted killing, and is the only time that lethal
force is legitimate
David Kretzmer, J.D., York University “Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or
Legitimate Means of Defence?”The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 No. 2 2005: 174.
Under the law-enforcement model use of force can never be regarded as necessary (let alone absolutely
necessary) unless it is clear that there was no feasible possibility of protecting the prospective victim by
apprehending the suspected perpetrator. The paradigmatic case in which use of force would be justifiable is
where serious violence against the person to be protected is so imminent that trying to arrest the perpetrator
would allow him time to carry out his threat. It has been strongly argued that in no other case could we say that
use of lethal force is absolutely necessary. Borrowing US Secretary of State Daniel Webster’s classic definition of a
state’s right to use fore in self-defense in the exchange of notes following the Caroline incident, only where there
is a concrete imminent threat can it be said that there is ‘a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming,
leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.’
Targeted killing is not the same thing as an assassination
Brenda Godfrey, paralegal, “Authorization to Kill Terrorist Leaders and Those Who Harbor Them: An
International Assessment of Defensive Assassination,” San Diego International Law Journal 2003: 492.
Based on these definitions of assassination, if a state covertly killed a known terrorist, would the killing actually
be an assassination? At first glance, the answer may appear to be yes if the terrorist is perceived to be a public
figure acting for political purposes. However, according to one legal scholar, the term assassination is prone to
overbroad application. "The meaning of the term "assassination' in historical context, and in light of its usage in
the laws of war, is, simply, any unlawful killing of particular individuals for political purposes." However, under
no circumstances should assassination be defined to include any lawful homicide. Now in the instance of a
known terrorist, a covert targeted killing of the terrorist would not likely be considered an assassination
because, as discussed in detail below, there is a strong case for classifying the killing as one in self-defense,
which makes the killing a lawful act.
23
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Just War Theory supports morality of targeted killing
Steven R. David, Ph.D Harvard University, “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing.” The Begin-Sadat
Center for Strategic Studies: Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 51 (September 2002): 2.
The Israeli policy of targeted killing rests on an unassailable moral foundation. Just War tradition from the time
of Saint Augustine to the present has emphasized the need for armed conflict to be discriminate and
proportionate in the pursuit of legitimate ends for the use of force to be moral. There is no question that the
policy of targeted killing meets these criteria. Targeted killing is discriminatory in that it focuses exclusively on
one's adversaries. Civilian casualties and collateral damage are minimized. It is proportionate in that only
enough force is used to accomplish the task. Targeted killing does not employ large numbers of troops,
bombers, artillery and other means that can leave in their wake far more destruction than they prevent. And
targeted killing serves a legitimate end by striking at those who threaten the lives of innocents. Since the policy
is applied against those on their way to terrorist attacks or those who make such attacks possible, targeted
killing enables Israel to protect its civilians by eliminating those who would murder them. Far from being
morally questionable, it would be difficult to come up with an approach in warfare that rests on stronger moral
ground.
Terrorist attacks justify a state of self-defense
David Kretzmer, J.D., York University “Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or
Legitimate Means of Defence?”The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 No. 2 2005: 174.
A transnational terrorist attack, or a series of such attacks, of sufficient scale and effects, may constitute an
armed attack that gives rise to the right of a state to use force in self-defense. Even if one rejects this
assumption, it is clear that if a state sponsors or controls a terrorist group, and possibly even if it takes not action
to prevent use of its territory as a base for terrorist attacks against another state, such attacks may be imputed
to the sponsor or host state. In such a case the attacks could certainly be the kind of armed attack contemplated
by Article 51.
International armed conflict framework justifies
Gabriella Blumand, S.J.D.Harvard Law SchoolPhilip Heymann, Harvard Law School J.D.“Law and Policy of
Targeted Killing” Harvard National Security Journal Vol 1.2010
Barak began by accepting that, unlike in the era of the First Intifada,there was now an “international armed
conflict” with Palestinian militants, which warranted and justified the use of military means, as governed by
customary international law, to combat terrorism. For Barak, accepting the armed conflict paradigm was, able it
implicitly, a precondition to the justification of targeting operations, going far beyond any law enforcement
method. Furthermore, his choice of an international armed conflict paradigm was singular amongst the opinions
of the U.S.Supreme Court as well as most other commentators, which have favored an on-international armed
conflict model. This choice was possibly motivated by the fact that international armed conflicts are subject to
more regulation under international law than their non-international counterparts, thereby further constraining
the government.
24
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Standards in place to protect against abuse
Sascha-Dominik Oliver Vladimir Bachmann, University of Portsmouth Ulf Haeussler, National Defense
University, Targeted Killing as a Means of Asymmetric Warfare: A Provocative View and Invitation to Debate (May,
17 2011). Law, Crime & History, Vol. 1, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=184416
The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) prohibits general and non– discriminate attacks on civilian non– combatants
and the acceptance of excessive collateral damage. Such attacks or effects may violate, as the case may be, one
or more of the fundamental LOAC principles, that is, the principles of military necessity, distinction and
proportionality. To prevent such violations, armed forces have developed a complex targeting process. This
process, in particular steps ‘target development’ and ‘assessment’ therein applied by many armed forces aims –
among other ends – to ensure that these humanitarian limitations to the use of force are observed. However,
the designation of a person as a target is not based on procedures similar to police or prosecutorial
investigation; the presumption of innocence which directs the administration of criminal justice is hence inept in
this context. Rather, the aim of targeting individual persons is to reach a decision – based on comprehensive
legal advice – taken by the responsible military commander as to how the opposing party to the conflict shall be
weakened temporarily or (preferably) constantly. U.S. intelligence sources have observed, by the way, that the
effectiveness of targeted killings is causing the Taliban and Al Qaida problems in recruiting new personnel for
certain leadership positions.
Thorough check through of operation reduces collateral damage
Sascha-Dominik Oliver Vladimir Bachmann, University of Portsmouth Ulf Haeussler, National Defense
University, Targeted Killing as a Means of Asymmetric Warfare: A Provocative View and Invitation to Debate (May,
17 2011). Law, Crime & History, Vol. 1, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=184416
Intelligence collection, analysis and target reconnaissance provide the required information – both for the
planning and execution of a given operation. New information, specifically if additional significant collateral
damage must be anticipated, may cause an operation to be cancelled or suspended on grounds violations of
distinction and/or proportionality. Upon completion of an operation, in a post operational assessment both the
military advantage achieved and compliance with standards of International Law are assessed; in case of non–
compliance this will also involve the question of whether a formal investigation leading to appropriate legal
consequences is required.
25
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
PART V: THE NEGATIVE
26
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
PART V—A: SAMPLE NEGATIVE CASE
Definitions
Targeted Killing: “Premeditated killing of an individual by a government or its agents”
(William C. Banks, J.D., University of Denver, and Peter Raven-Hansen, J.D., Harvard University, “Targeted Killing
and Assassination: The U.S. Legal Framework,” U. Richmond L. Rev.) Targeted killing is no different than
assassination when looking to the most fundamental level. To further this, assassination is the same thing as
premeditated murder. So we have to ask ourselves: do we allow targeted killings? Further, there is no official
definition of targeted killings, making the affirmative’s job of creating a standard much harder.
Morally Permissible: “In accordance with morality; virtuously” “allowable:” (Oxford English Dictionary) Morality is
the guiding principle to how we conceptualize the difference between right and wrong. There is a strict binary and
if something is morally permissible, then something about the action itself must be good in order for it to be
allowed. The question then becomes: is there anything good from killing another person?
Value: Respect for life
My value for today’s round is that of respect for life. Life is the only thing that each human has and is the most
sacred of all values because it allows us to have all other things. Respect for life ensures that all individuals are able
to keep their lives and thus pursue the other values in life that they want to achieve. No person should rob another
person of their life.
Criterion: Deontology
My criterion for the round is that of deontology. When looking to the value of respect or life, we can see that it is
constructed in absolutes: death or life. Therefore, a moral code that looks to absolutes must be used to preserve
such a valuable thing of life. There is no situation in which taking another person’s life is permissible.
Contention One: Targeted Killings are Immoral
A) Not reconcilable with human rights law
William Abresch, Director, Project on Extrajudicial Executions Center of Human Rights and Global Justice,
NYU Law “Targeted Killing in International Law Review” European Journal of International Law2009 20 (2):
449-453.
Melzer's analysis of those targeted killings that fall within the law enforcement paradigm exemplifies
how a legal analysis tailored to the specificity of a killing which is intentional, premeditated, and
deliberate will differ from a general analysis of the use of lethal force. This difference pertains in part to
‘the practical consequences of an operational shift from “potentially” to “intentionally” lethal force’ (at
424). Melzer observes that international human rights law's requirement that any deprivation of life by
the state be ‘absolutely necessary’ means that such deprivation is lawful only if ‘in the concrete
circumstances, the killing of a person is qualitatively, quantitatively and temporally indispensable for
the removal of the threat in question’, and that human rights law's requirement of ‘proportionality’
means that the threat in question must be ‘an unlawful attack on human life’ (at 228, 424). These
principles require law enforcement operations to be planned and conducted with the constant aim of
avoiding the use of even potentially lethal force. The intended result of a law enforcement operation is
the arrest of the suspect. Even as the operation proceeds, warnings, protocols for gradually escalating
force, and other measures serve to forestall a decision to kill for as long as possible. Intentionally lethal
force remains only a last resort, should an operation unfold in an especially undesirable manner. For
this reason, Melzer argues that the intentional, premeditated, and deliberate deprivation of life
characteristic of a targeted killing is nearly always – though not invariably – irreconcilable with the
human rights law framework under the law enforcement paradigm.
27
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
B) Used for revenge purposes
Steven R. David, Ph.D Harvard University, “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing.” The BeginSadat Center for Strategic Studies: Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 51 (September 2002): 2.
Targeted killing also serves Israel's interests because it affords the Israeli public a sense of
revenge.Revenge is seen by many as a destructive and even evil motivation that should be avoided at
all costs. This explains the Israeli High Court decision to prohibit targeted killings in the name of
vengeance.But revenge is also a natural desire by an individual or society for obtaining justice when
other means are not available. Achieving revenge can bring about a sense of fulfillment and justice for
people who believe they have been wronged. Failing to achieve revenge can lead to despair, frustration
and anger. Politically, this can lead to the downfall of governments unwilling or unable to avenge attacks
on its people. More fundamentally, withstanding repeated attacks without responding can lead to a sense
of impotence and malaise that ultimately weakens a society's ability to protect itself. Revenge becomes
problematic when there are no guidelines for how to act and against whom. If there is too much space
for arbitrary retaliation, revenge can indeed get out of hand and become disruptive.
C) Targeted killings are not actual acts of self defense
Jeremy Waldron, D.Phil. (Law), Oxford University, “Targeted Killing” London Review of Books Blog, May
2011http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2011/05/07/jeremy-waldron/targeted-killing/
A White House spokesman has said the killing was a legitimate act of self-defense. I assume this wasn’t
intended as an analogy with self-defense as that term is understood in criminal law, for we do not allow
the shooting of people in their beds on the grounds that they have been dangerous in the past or may
be in the future. Nothing but an immediate threat, an imminent threat, will do. Talk of national selfdefiance can only refer to the conduct of defensive war under the auspices of Article 51 of the United
Nations Charter. That is where the justificatory debate should be focused.
28
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
PARTT V—B: NEGATIVE EXTENSIONS/BLOCKS
29
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Targeted Killing Standards Wrong
International law and the Constitution do not make targeted killings permissible
PardissKebriaei, law degree University of Pennsylvania and Northwestern University“The Targeted Killings
Debate.” Council on Foreign Relations.2011 http://www.cfr.org/international-peace-and-security/targetedkillings-debate/p25230
Where conditions of armed conflict do not exist, the law that governs the actions of the United States is the
Constitution and international human rights law, under which the government can only carry out a killing after
due process or as a last resort to address an imminent threat of deadly harm. Those are the standards, for
example, that should govern the United States' actions vis-à-vis U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen.
Almost anyone can be considered a threat
Jeremy Waldron, D.Phil. (Law), Oxford University, “Targeted Killing” London Review of Books Blog, May
2011http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2011/05/07/jeremy-waldron/targeted-killing/
Many people – most prominently the Archbishop of Canterbury – have said that the bin Laden killing leaves them
with ‘a very uncomfortable feeling’. Here are some questions designed to identify possible sources for this
discomfort. First, are we happy to have the principle on which this killing was conducted made available in the
world for use by any government against those it can plausibly describe as threats to its security or its national
interest? Think of Russia in the Caucasus or China in its restive western provinces. Second, who would have been
a likely target if a policy like this had been adopted by Britain or by any number of countries against other kinds
of enemy in (say) the last 50 years. We defend targeted killing when the targets are terrorists, but the term
‘terrorist’ was used almost reflexively by colonial or repressive governments to apply to insurgents or enemies
of the regime. South Africa called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and attempted the targeted assassination of
various members of the ANC including Albie Sachs (who later sat, maimed by the attempt, on the South African
Supreme Court). For that matter, think of the British government’s fondness for describing virtually every active
opponent against colonial rule in the 1950s and 1960s as a terrorist, including many who later became respected
statesmen. Or think of the harm that might have been done to peace prospects in Northern Ireland if a shoot-tokill policy had been used more widely against IRA commanders than in fact it was. Sometimes one has to refrain
from ‘decapitating’ an organization so that there is somebody left to talk to.
Self-defense standard can only implemented when the strike is immediately after an
attack
Brenda Godfrey, paralegal, “Authorization to Kill Terrorist Leaders and Those Who Harbor Them: An
International Assessment of Defensive Assassination,” San Diego International Law Journal 2003: 492.
For the use of force in self-defense to be permissible under the Charter, such force must...be immediately
subsequent to and proportional to the armed attack to which it was an answer.If excessively delayed or
excessively severe, it ceased to be self-defense and became a reprisal which was an action inconsistent with the
purposes of the United Nations. Although any response by a Member of the United Nations that has been
attacked should be close to the actual time of the attack, the timing of a response to an attack upon a state should
not be judged by the same standard used to [assess] a claim of self-defense by an individual who is attacked. An
individual's response is normally spontaneous, whereas a state requires a more calculated response when its
"collective life is threatened." However, some critics argue that the stricter interpretation of the Caroline doctrine
should apply in the analysis of Article 51's self-defense provision. In fact, both liberal and conservative critics
agree that states justifying military responses under the pretext of Article 51's self-defense provision, should be
interpreted in the light of customary international law and of the classic words of U.S. Secretary of State Daniel
Webster to the effect that self-defense applies only in extraordinary circumstances where "the necessity of that
self-defense is instant, over-whelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."
30
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Used for revenge purposes
Steven R. David, Ph.D Harvard University, “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing.” The Begin-Sadat
Center for Strategic Studies: Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 51 (September 2002): 2.
Targeted killing also serves Israel's interests because it affords the Israeli public a sense of revenge.Revenge is
seen by many as a destructive and even evil motivation that should be avoided at all costs. This explains the
Israeli High Court decision to prohibit targeted killings in the name of vengeance.But revenge is also a natural
desire by an individual or society for obtaining justice when other means are not available. Achieving revenge
can bring about a sense of fulfillment and justice for people who believe they have been wronged. Failing to
achieve revenge can lead to despair, frustration and anger. Politically, this can lead to the downfall of governments
unwilling or unable to avenge attacks on its people. More fundamentally, withstanding repeated attacks without
responding can lead to a sense of impotence and malaise that ultimately weakens a society's ability to protect
itself. Revenge becomes problematic when there are no guidelines for how to act and against whom. If there is
too much space for arbitrary retaliation, revenge can indeed get out of hand and become disruptive.
Targeted killings are not actual acts of self defense
Jeremy Waldron, D.Phil. (Law), Oxford University, “Targeted Killing” London Review of Books Blog, May
2011http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2011/05/07/jeremy-waldron/targeted-killing/
A White House spokesman has said the killing was a legitimate act of self-defense. I assume this wasn’t intended
as an analogy with self-defense as that term is understood in criminal law, for we do not allow the shooting of
people in their beds on the grounds that they have been dangerous in the past or may be in the future. Nothing
but an immediate threat, an imminent threat, will do. Talk of national self-defiance can only refer to the conduct
of defensive war under the auspices of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. That is where the justificatory
debate should be focused.
Standards for when a targeted killing is ok are vague and confusing
David Kretzmer, J.D., York University “Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or
Legitimate Means of Defence?”The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 No. 2 2005: 174.
The Commission(Inter-American Commission on Human Rights) was apparently well aware that its analysis left
matter unclear. In what reads as a somewhat feeble attempt to reduce the ambiguity, the Commission ends its
analysis of the right to life issue with the following statement: ‘It should be emphasized that, contrary to
international humanitarian law governing situations of armed conflicts, relevant applicable norms of
international human rights law require that state agents not use force to target individuals involved in a violent
confrontation except in the above-mentioned circumstances.’ The problem is, of course, that ‘the abovementioned circumstances’ are extremely vague. The question that interests us-targeting of suspected terrorists
who are not within the state’s jurisdiction-remains obscure”
31
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Targeted Killings Not an Effective Strategy
Wrong intelligence can lead to killing the wrong person
Kate Clark, Senior Analyst, Afghanistan Analysts Network “Targeted killings and two worlds in Afghanistan: inside
the Takhar attack” AFPAK May 2011
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/11/the_takhar_attack_targeted_killings_and_two_worlds_in_afgha
nistan
On September 2, 2010, ten men in northern Afghanistan were killed in an air attack that was a targeted killing,
part of the U.S. Special Forces ‘kill or capture' strategy. The U.S. military said it had killed the Taliban deputy
shadow governor of Takhar, who was also a ‘senior member' of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU): one
Muhammad Amin, as well as "eight or nine other insurgents." Many Afghans, including senior government
officials, were incredulous. Many knew the man who had actually been targeted -- who was not Muhammad
Amin, but ZabetAmanullah. He had not fought for the Taliban since 2001 and had been out campaigning for his
nephew in Afghanistan's parliamentary elections with more than a dozen other men, mainly extended family
members. That very morning, as per usual, he had called in to the district police chief to check on security before
the election campaign convoy set off. The strike was an "obvious mistake," said the provincial governor, AbdulJabarTaqwa. "He was an ordinary person and lived among normal people," said the Takhar Chief of Police, Shah
JahaanNuri. "I could have captured him with one phone call." U.S. Special Forces got the wrong man, but despite
overwhelming evidence, they have remained adamant that they were correct. Senior Special Forces officers'
gave me lengthy accounts of the attack, including the intelligence behind it. That has allowed a piecing together
of what went wrong. Intelligence analysts were monitoring the calls of Muhammad Amin in early 2010 -- and
confirmed that he really was the Taliban deputy governor of Takhar. They came to believe that one number he
had called in Kabul was passed on to him. They believed he began to use this phone and to ‘self-identify' as
ZabetAmanullah. In other words, they believed Muhammad Amin was using the name ‘ZabetAmanullah' as an
alias.
Countries can gain more intelligence by capturing
Daniel L. Byman, Ph.D. MIT, Political Science, “The Targeted Killings Debate.” Council on Foreign
Relations.2011 http://www.cfr.org/international-peace-and-security/targeted-killings-debate/p25230
A targeted killing campaign, of course, is not a strategy by itself. At home and in most countries in the world, the
United States can simply ask its allies to monitor suspected terrorists and arrest them--and, in so doing, gain
intelligence--should they prove dangerous. And efforts to delegitimize terrorists and strengthen weak
governments must also continue and become stronger. However, killing terrorists can complement other
instruments of U.S. national policy.
Targeted killings causes Hydra effect
Gabriella Blumand, S.J.D.Harvard Law SchoolPhilip Heymann, Harvard Law School J.D.“Law and Policy of
Targeted Killing” Harvard National Security JournalVol 1.2010
An immediate consequence of eliminating leaders of terrorist organizations will sometimes be what may be
called the Hydra effect, the rise of more—and more resolute—leaders to replace them. The decapitating of the
organization may also invite retaliation by the other members and followers of the organization. Thus, when
Israel assassinated Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah‘s leader in Lebanon, in 1992, a more charismatic and successful
leader, Hassan Nassrallah, succeeded Mussawi. The armed group then avenged the assassination of its former
leader in two separate attacks, blowing up Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires, killing over a hundred
people and injuring hundreds more
32
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Unable to negotiate and fix the problem: just creates a cycle
Steven R. David, Ph.D Harvard University, “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing.” The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies:
Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 51 (September 2002): 2.
When Israel killed Arafat's second-in-command, Abu Jihad, in 1988, it eliminated not only an individual behind
several bloody operations, but also someone on the right wing of the PLO who many saw as a pragmatist
capable of making peaceful compromises. As EzerWeizman, then a member of the Israeli cabinet, remarked referring to Abu Jihad's
killing, "We are trying to find Palestinians to talk to us. We are trying to get the US to bring the two sides
together. I don't think the assassination contributes to this. Liquidating individuals will not advance the peace
process." Reported Israeli efforts to kill Marwan Barghouti fall into the same trap. Barghouti, who was taken prisoner in April
2002 in a major military sweep, supposedly was marked for execution. Only a mistake in communications
resulted in his being imprisoned instead. Barghouti is widely considered as a reasonable alternative to Arafat.
Like virtually every potential successor to Arafat, however, Barghouti has been implicated in terrorist acts
against Israelis, hence the reported decision to have him killed. If Israel kills everyone who has been involved in
terrorism, however, there will be no one left with any standing among the Palestinians with whom to negotiate.
When targeted killing eliminates those who can potentially arrange a settlement, Israeli interests are severely
damaged.
Reinforces terrorist ideology
Steven R. David, Ph.D Harvard University, “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing.” The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies:
Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 51 (September 2002): 2.
Selectively killing Palestinian terrorists enhances the effectiveness of Palestinian attacks by encouraging new
recruits for suicide bombings. Each time the Israelis kill a would-be suicide bomber or Palestinian official, a
"martyr" is created. Palestinian organizations feverishly publicize and romanticize the victims by putting on lavish funeral processions and
displaying the "martyr's" pictures. At these funerals, it is common to see dozens of young men (and women) pledging
their willingness to become suicide bombers. Some of this, undoubtedly, is just for show. But as the spike in suicide
bombings beginning in early 2002 attest, the supply of suicide bombers does appear to have grown. Inasmuch as
becoming a victim of an Israeli targeted killing has become a badge of honor among Palestinians, when the
Israelis slay an alleged terrorist they unwittingly enhance the popularity of the organization to which he or she
belonged. Many of the targets of Israel's attacks have come from Hamas and Islamic Jihad. These organizations
then exploit their casualties in a manner designed to curry support among the Palestinian people . With public
opinion polls showing skyrocketing approval of these groups, their efforts appear to be succeeding. In an effort to compete with Hamas and
Jihad's success, Arafat's organizations dramatically stepped up their own terrorist attacks in 2002. A competition
developed as to which group could launch the most costly attacks against Israel. The policy of targeted killing, by
affording prestige to those planning and committing these attacks, has encouraged that which it most seeks to
deter.
Bad political strategy—emboldens groups and is bad for foreign policy
Gabriella Blumand, S.J.D.Harvard Law SchoolPhilip Heymann, Harvard Law School J.D.“Law and Policy of Targeted Killing” Harvard
National Security JournalVol 1.2010
The political message flowing from the use of targeted killings may be harmful to the attacking country’s
interest, as it emphasizes the disparity in power between the parties and reinforces popular support for the
terrorists, who are seen as a David fighting Goliath. Moreover,By resorting to military force rather than to law enforcement,
targeted killings might strengthen the sense of legitimacy of terrorist operations, which are sometimes viewed as the only
viable option for the weak to fight against a powerful empire.If collateral damage to civilians accompanies targeted killings,
this, too, may bolster support for what seems like the just cause of the terrorists, at the same time as it weakens
domestic support for fighting the terrorists. When targeted killing operations are conducted on foreign territory,
they run the risk of heightening international tensions between the targeting government and the government
in whose territory the operation is conducted. Israel’s relations with Jordan became dangerously strained following the failed
attempt in September 1997 in Jordan to assassinate KhaledMashaal, the leader of Hamas.
33
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Targeted Killings Cause More Deaths
Researchers have linked violence and instability to targeted killing
Kate Clark, Senior Analyst, Afghanistan Analysts Network, “The Targeted Killings Debate.” Council on Foreign
Relations.2011 http://www.cfr.org/international-peace-and-security/targeted-killings-debate/p25230
In the summer of 2009, the friend of a veteran Afghan researcher on the Taliban was accused of spying. He was a
known figure in his district, Zurmat, in Paktia province and was not too frightened when he was summoned to the
"court," which was made up of elders that included a couple of Taliban representatives. It found him innocent. A
year later, in the summer of 2010, a spate of suspected spies were murdered in Zurmat, their throats slit "like
sheep" by unknown killers. The judicial system, however rudimentary, had broken down. The researcher linked
the violent shift to a general weakening of local Taliban command and control, and blamed the U.S. policy of
targeted killing and detention of field commanders ("kill or capture") in Afghanistan. The local and indeed
regional Afghan leadership no longer had the clout to discipline Pakistani Waziris and other foreign jihadists-what the researcher called "criminal Taliban"--who had streamed across the border from Pakistan.
Kills more people than saves
Steven R. David, Ph.D Harvard University, “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing.” The Begin-Sadat
Center for Strategic Studies: Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 51 (September 2002): 2.
There are also strong arguments that targeted killing is an ineffective and even harmful policy for Israel to follow.
No compelling evidence exists that targeted killing has reduced the terrorist threat against Israel. By May 2002,
after eighteen months of targeted killings carried out at an unprecedented scale, the number of Israeli victims of
Palestinian terror had reached an all-time high of nearly 500. It is, of course, always possible to assert that the
number of Israeli deaths would have been even greater if not for the targeted killing. But this is an unfalsifiable
proposition that is based more on faith than on reasoned analysis.
Four examples from Israel prove causes more harm
Steven R. David, Ph.D Harvard University, “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing.” The Begin-Sadat
Center for Strategic Studies: Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 51 (September 2002): 2.
A much stronger case can be made that targeted killing actually increases the number of Israelis killed, by
provoking retaliation, than it saves lives by eliminating key terrorists.Four examples of targeted killing that
produced a murderous response are especially compelling. First, as mentioned above, the Israeli killing of "the
engineer" YehiyaAyash in January 1996 provoked four retaliatory suicide bombings of buses, killing more than
50 Israelis. Second, the first-ever killing of an Israeli cabinet minister occurred in October 2001, when members
of the PFLP killed RehavamZe'evi. The PFLP stated it killed Ze'evi in retaliation for the Israeli killing of its leader,
Mustafa Zibri, two months earlier. Third, the January 2002 targeted killing of Tanzim leader, Raed al-Karmi
ended a cease-fire declared by Yasir Arafat the previous month.During that tenuous cease-fire, the violence of
the intifada had been reduced to its lowest point since its inception. Following the slaying of Karmi, however,
the Palestinians unleashed an unprecedented wave of suicide bombers, killing large numbers of Israelis. Both
Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti and senior Israeli military officers agreed that Karmi's killing transformed a
situation of relative calm into one of murderous violence. Even more important, Karmi's death reportedly caused
the Al-Aksa Brigades—a secular group owing allegiance to Fatah—to engage in suicide bombings. Previously,
only Islamic Jihad and Hamas employed this weapon. The result was record casualties among Israelis combined
with the added complication of having to confront women suicide bombers (which Islamic Jihad and Hamas have
not employed) as well as men. Finally, the Israeli killing of Hamas leader, Sheik Salah Shehada, in July 2002,
derailed what many believed to be promising negotiations.
34
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Targeted Killing Immoral
Not reconcilable with human rights law
William Abresch, Director, Project on Extrajudicial Executions Center of Human Rights and Global Justice, NYU
Law “Targeted Killing in International Law Review” European Journal of International Law2009 20 (2): 449-453.
Melzer's analysis of those targeted killings that fall within the law enforcement paradigm exemplifies how a
legal analysis tailored to the specificity of a killing which is intentional, premeditated, and deliberate will differ
from a general analysis of the use of lethal force. This difference pertains in part to ‘the practical consequences of
an operational shift from “potentially” to “intentionally” lethal force’ (at 424). Melzer observes that international
human rights law's requirement that any deprivation of life by the state be ‘absolutely necessary’ means that
such deprivation is lawful only if ‘in the concrete circumstances, the killing of a person is qualitatively,
quantitatively and temporally indispensable for the removal of the threat in question’, and that human rights
law's requirement of ‘proportionality’ means that the threat in question must be ‘an unlawful attack on human
life’ (at 228, 424). These principles require law enforcement operations to be planned and conducted with the
constant aim of avoiding the use of even potentially lethal force. The intended result of a law enforcement
operation is the arrest of the suspect. Even as the operation proceeds, warnings, protocols for gradually escalating
force, and other measures serve to forestall a decision to kill for as long as possible. Intentionally lethal force
remains only a last resort, should an operation unfold in an especially undesirable manner. For this reason,
Melzer argues that the intentional, premeditated, and deliberate deprivation of life characteristic of a targeted
killing is nearly always – though not invariably – irreconcilable with the human rights law framework under the
law enforcement paradigm.
Human Rights Committee says that it can’t be used as preemptive measure, only when
attack is imminent
David Kretzmer, J.D., York University “Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or
Legitimate Means of Defence?”The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 No. 2 2005: 174.
The Human Rights Committee is of the opinion that targeted killings of suspected terrorists in the Occupied
Territories only raise issues under Article 6, when they are used as a deterrent or punishment, and not,
presumably, when they are used as a pre-emptive preventive measure. On the other hand, in its recommendation,
the Committee refers to use of deadly force against a ‘person suspected of being in the process of committing
acts of terror.’ This would seem to imply that the Committee adopts the approach that preventive force may
only be used in the face of an imminent attack, which cannot be halted by arresting the perpetrator.
Immoral because not proportionate to act
Brenda Godfrey, paralegal, “Authorization to Kill Terrorist Leaders and Those Who Harbor Them: An
International Assessment of Defensive Assassination,” San Diego International Law Journal 2003: 492.
However, one legal scholar, Liam Murphy, says of a terrorist act, it is "by nature, an isolated act, a response of
war is disproportionate and therefore illegal. Likewise, a reprisal is an illegal response to "private' terrorist
activity." He further opines that "private terrorists cannot be attacked in the same way as a state because they
have no territory or government; their status as individuals changes the status of such an act against them by a
state from reprisal to, at least, execution." Murphy also believes that when a state suffers a terrorist attack, it
has two authorized options: (1) it can use guards as a means of force to defend against the terrorist attack; and,
(2) citizens of the state can resist such an attack. "The proportionality of response is not at issue with respect to
the state's "reaction' because the purpose of the reaction is to stop the attack; the reaction period does not end
until the attack is repelled."
35
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Only justified as last resort, that’s impossible to tell and violates state sovereignty
David Kretzmer, J.D., York University “Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists: Extra-Judicial Executions or
Legitimate Means of Defence?”The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 No. 2 2005: 174.
The problem with the law-enforcement model in the context of transnational terror is that one of its
fundamental premises is invalid: that the suspected perpetrator is within the jurisdiction of the lawenforcement authorities in the victim state, so that an arrest can be effected. What is the situation when,
according to our premise, the terrorist is in the territory of another state? The victim state may not arrest or
apprehend that person without the active assistance and support of that other state. But what if that state is
either unwilling to arrest the suspected terrorist or incapable of doing so? Leaving aside issues of state
sovereignty, and relying solely on the duty of the victim state under international human rights law to respect the
right to life, could it not argue that it has no choice but to resort to force against the suspected terrorist? That
force is absolutely necessary to protect its civilians against unlawful violence? Obviously it could not do so in
every situation. Thus, it could not do so if its aim were to punish the suspected terrorist for past acts, or to deter
potential terrorists from acting. But what if the state has strong evidence that the suspected terrorist is
continuing to plan terrorist attacks against people in its territory? That if it does not either apprehend or target
him, there is a very strong probability that he will carry out or organize further attacks? Would this also not be the
kind of situation described by Secretary of State Webster in his classic formulation of a state’s right to selfdefense? Could this not be regarded as a situation in which it was absolutely necessary to use lethal force? To put
it another way: if the requirement of imminent danger rests on the availability of non-lethal, due process lawenforcement measures when the danger is not imminent, does the immanency requirement lose part of its force
when such measures are unavailable?
No retribution for wrong killings
Kate Clark, Senior Analyst, Afghanistan Analysts Network “Targeted killings and two worlds in Afghanistan: inside
the Takhar attack” AFPAK May 2011
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/11/the_takhar_attack_targeted_killings_and_two_worlds_in_afgha
nistan
The human cost of killing ten civilians and turning forty women and children into widows and orphans is great.
Legally, the magnitude of the intelligence failings may have been so great that the U.S. military violated the
rules of war, whereby combatants must take all feasible precautions to protect civilians. However, there are
strong indications that the flaws in intelligence highlighted by this case are systemic. Indeed, General David
Petraeus spoke about this, about the U.S. military's lack of a "granular understanding of local circumstances," by
chance, on the very day of the Takhar attack. For the U.S. military, simply reiterating that they were right, in
response to overwhelming evidence to the contrary is not an adequate response and will hardly reassure
Afghans that similar mistakes will not be made in future
Condemned by international community
Steven R. David, Ph.D Harvard University, “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing.” The Begin-Sadat
Center for Strategic Studies: Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 51 (September 2002): 2.
Israel's policy of targeted killing has produced worldwide condemnation. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan
repeatedly urged Israel to end targeted killings, saying it violates international law and undermines efforts at
achieving a Middle East peace. In the United States, Secretary of State Colin Powell has also condemned the
policy, declaring at one point, "We continue to express our distress and opposition to these kinds of targeted
killings and we will continue to do so." While serving as American Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk provided a
harsh criticism of targeted killing on Israeli television saying, "The United States government is very clearly on
the record as against targeted assassinations." They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that."
36
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Construction of terrorist causes dehumanization
Gabriella Blumand, S.J.D.Harvard Law SchoolPhilip Heymann, Harvard Law School J.D.“Law and Policy of
Targeted Killing” Harvard National Security JournalVol 1.2010
The Bush administration has favored the paradigm of war, treating terrorists as combatants and justifying the
targeted killing of terrorists as equivalent to the lawful killing of members of an enemy force on any battlefield.
Specifically, the administration deemed terrorists to be “unlawful combatants,” targetable and detainable, but
denied the rights accorded to lawful detainees, namely, to be treated as prisoners of war if captured. The Bush
administration maintained this position even when the targeted killing took place in Yemen or Pakistan, outside an
immediate theater of hostilities such as Afghanistan. Given that the war on terrorism was a “global war,” the
Administration maintained, there could be no geographical boundaries to the theater of war.
37
West Coast Publishing
2011 NFL LD-Targeted killing
Targeted Killings are Still Murder
Suicide attacks and targeted killings driven by same motivation
David A. Jaeger and M. Daniele Paserman “The Shape of Things to Come? On the Dynamics of Suicide Attacks
and Targeted Killings” Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2009, 4: 315–342
Both suicide attacks and targeted killings are designed to induce fear in the opposite side and to provoke them
to take a future course of action that is more desirable for the offensive side. Both actions also carry the
objective of delivering retribution for past violence. Suicide attacks by Palestinians may serve a number of
strategic goals (inducing Israel to make territorial concessions, der ailing the peace process, improving the
popularity of the faction responsible in the eyes of the Palestinian public, etc.), but they are also likely to
prompt an Israeli response. Targeted killings of Palestinian militants have the objective of incapacitation by the
deliberate destruction of human capital. They may, however, also boost the desire for vengeance among the
Palestinians, facilitating the recruitment of potential suicide bomber s, and therefore increase the level of
violence against Israeli targets. All of these factors suggest that whether targeted killings and suicide attacks
raise or lower the level of violence is ultimately an empirical question.
Definition of terrorist means that they are non-combative
David A. Jaeger and M. Daniele Paserman “The Shape of Things to Come? On the Dynamics of Suicide Attacks
and Targeted Killings” Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2009, 4: 315–342
In international law and the laws of armed conflict, the two most important bodies of law to address are
International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law. International Humanitarian Law applies to
situations of armed conflict; Human Rights Law applies to non-combatants and civilians outside of situations of
armed conflict. Because, by definition, individuals such as individual terrorist actors or agents of the C.I.A. are
not combatants under international legal norms, difficulties arise when attempting to analyze their actions
under the laws of armed conflict. Difficulties stemming from the respect of other nations borders and limitations
of law enforcement to domestic situations also complicates analysis under the laws of peace-time law
enforcement and human rights law. Defining past and future U.S. use of drones and targeted killings is
complicated by the fact that the Bush Administration frequently defined all of its actions in the “war on terror”
as armed conflict.
38