March/April 2012 LINCOLN DOUGLAS TOPIC LECTURE

RESOLVED: TARGETED KILLING IS A MORALLY PERMISSIBLE FOREIGN POLICY TOOL.

DEFINITIONS Targeted Killing : Deliberate specific targeted killing by a government or its agents of a terrorist or combatants who is not in the government’s custody. There is no other option, the intent to kill is from the start. Takes place during an armed conflict as part of a military effort. Extra-judicial killing is with the intent to put them on trial but kill them anyway. This is knowingly illegal. There are other alternatives but we’re going to kill them anyway. Assassination is considered illegal under national and international law. Usually against a political opponent, not at a time of war. Typically within own country.

GARY SOLIS (GEORGETOWN LAW) DEFINES THE PARAMETERS OF TARGETED KILLING AS SUCH: An armed conflict is somehow in progress. Target must be a specific individual. Target must be involved in that conflict. A senior official must authorize the killing. Clear and present danger exists. No reasonable alternative exists. Option of last resort. ** Unmanned drones usually responsible for carrying out targeted killings, Osama Bin Laden’s death was unique because it became crucial that there be human confirmation.

GENERAL ANALYSIS: Morally permissible? What makes something moral? Moral permissibility concedes that there is going to be some questionable means (messy) Morally prohibited? A duty?

AGENTS OF ACTION/EVALUATION Agents of Action: Governments or government agents. Agents of Evaluation: who determines if this is permissible? One country? The international community?

NEGATION Foreign policy implies a self-interested strategy chosen by states to safeguard their national interest. “Empire” the idea that post-colonial US foreign policy is centered around creating an empire. Policy is not just referring to the acts of a state but the intent and goals behind that action Ethical framework: Kantian Deontology, Nonviolence (Christian, Buddhist), International law

AFFIRMATION Ethical framework: Utilitarianism, Hobbes/Lockian Social Contract Theory- state’s sole responsibility was to keep the people safe and secure. Leaders need to represent their people. If they don’t, it is time for them to go. (Libya/Syria)

HISTORY Israel targeting Palestinians who kidnapped Isreali Olympic athletes. (movie Munich) IN 2006 the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that targeted killing is a legitimate form of self-defense and was legal under Israeli law. France has used it, Russian very recently with Chechnya. Colombia with their civil war but most of these are domestic objectives. For international examples, best bets are Israel and the US.

HISTORY IN THE US US Review Process Who is a terrorist? Someone who is funding terrorism, training terrorists don’t qualify. US is very careful – typically directly involved in killings or actively planning an attack. NOT domestic. An international objective. Adopted this policy VERY recently. Adopted post 9/11 specifically to combat terrorism.

Ayman al-Zahawahiri – Egyptian, Bin Laden’s second in command and his doctor. US received good intelligence and attacked, he wasn’t there and 18 civilians died. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – Iraqi operative who US targeted. Used 2 f16 fighter jets. He, his wife and son were killed and pictures were released everywhere. He was very dangerous and killed a lot of people. A child was killed in the process. Osama bin Laden – Ground troops used. Successful kill, civilians also killed. Anwar al-Awlaki – Alleged senior Al-Qaeda recruiter and motivator linked to various terrorists; committed to killing Americans and others worldwide. He is a target, but we have missed. Dual citizen of Yemen and US, born in New Mexico. First US citizen that we’ve targeted. Does he have a legal right that we are denying him as a citizen? Due process? Do we care?