The Instigator
Layne-vs-Kagan
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points

Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool against terrorism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Layne-vs-Kagan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,476 times Debate No: 21902
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (8)

 

Layne-vs-Kagan

Con

1. -Targeted killing has increases bombing and attacks

Andrew Cockburn, an investigative journalist and author, 11/10/2011 (“The Hydra Effect: Assassination Blowback” The Council for the National Interest, http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org...)//sbhags)



Early in 2008, however, Rex Rivolo, an analyst at the Counter-IED Operations/Intelligence Center attached to U.S. headquarters in Baghdad, briefed his superiors on some hard realities of the campaign. With access to any and all information relating to U.S. military operations in Iraq, he had identified about 200 successful missions in which key IED network individuals had been eliminated. Then he looked at the reports of subsequent bomb attacks in the late insurgent leader’s area of operation. The results were clear: IED attacks went up, immediately and sharply. One week after the hit, on average, incidents within about three miles of the dead leader’s home base had risen 20 per cent.



2. Killing leaders makes things worse - Terrorist leaders are replaced in 24 hours, and they’re more charismatic and less open to negotiation

Andrew Cockburn, an investigative journalist and author, 11/10/2011 (“The Effect: Assassination Blowback” The Council for the National Interest, http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org...)//sbhags)



Why, with the commander dead, did the enemy fight with such reinforced vigor? Eliminated enemy commanders, intelligence revealed, were almost always replaced at once, usually within 24 hours. “The new guy is going to work harder,” Rivolo told me. “He has to prove himself, assert his authority. Maybe the old guy had been getting lazy, not working so hard to plant those IEDs. Fresh blood makes a difference.”Once posited, this consequence may appear obvious, but Rivolo’s study, so far as I am aware, was the only time that anyone with access to relevant data had looked at the consequences of our principal national security strategy in a systematic way. However, even as he submitted his conclusions, the same strategy was being exported to Afghanistan on a major scale. Ever-increasing special forces “night raids” have indeed subsequently succeeded in killing large numbers of insurgent commanders (along with many civilians), but the consequences have been depressingly predictable. “I used to be able to go talk to local Taliban commanders,” a journalist long resident in Afghanistan told me, “but they are all dead. The ones who replaced them are much more dangerous. They don’t want to talk to anyone at all.” Nongovernmental groups similarly report that the new breed of Taliban leadership is unwilling to allow the free passage of aid workers permitted by their assassinated predecessors. Neither in Afghanistan nor Pakistan, where high-value targets are the responsibility of the CIA‘s burgeoning killer-drone bureaucracy, is there any indication that the enemy’s military capability has been diminished.




3. Targeted killing isn’t effective statistically

Andrew Cockburn, an investigative journalist and author, 11/10/2011 (“The Hydra Effect: Assassination Blowback” The Council for the National Interest, http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org...)//sbhags)



So, now that assassination is an official tool of U.S. foreign policy, along with trade embargoes and overseas aid, it is surely time for an open debate on whether it is indeed effective. Surprisingly for some, evidence based on hard numbers demonstrates unequivocally that the answer is No. The numbers are derived from a study conducted in Iraq during the “surge” campaign of 2007-08 that enabled the U.S. to declare victory and wind down the war. Key to the surge was an intensive and ruthless hunt for key individuals in the “IED networks” that were organizing homemade bomb attacks against U.S. troops. Cause and effect — more dead network leaders leading to fewer bombs — seemed so self-evidently obvious that nobody bothered to check.



4. Targeted killing is terrorism - 2 reasons


a. Targeted killing works like terrorism - the whole idea is to mobilize a group of people by scaring them using death


b. The war on terror has a net result of dead innocents – it’s morally equivalent to terrorism

Dr. Charles Webel, University of New York in Prague; Fulbright Senior Specialist in Peace and Conflict Resolution, and Dr. John Arnaldi, Ph.D. in Counselor Education M.A. in Rehabilitation Counseling B.A. in Psychology, January 2012,(“The Global War on Terrorism: How Ethical and Effective?”, Journal of International Relations Research,http://www.journalofinternationalrelationsresearch.com...)



When violations of noncombatant “immunity” become an intrinsic part, and the foreseeable effect, of such strategic policies as the bombing of cities (resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties during and after World War II) and the occupation of nations “that harbor terrorists” (also resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties and millions of displaced persons since the U.S.-­‐led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq), the theoretical separation of “ends” (“defeating totalitarianisms” and “vanquishing terrorists”) and “means (aerial bombings, “renditions,” “targeted assassinations,” “enhanced interrogation techniques,” drone attacks, etc.) collapses, as do claims of proportionality (given the massive destruction of civilian lives and cities as compared to the relatively low losses incurred by the U.S.-­‐led coalition). These failures to meet requirements for non combatant immunity and proportionality violate the principles of jus in bello and both international and U.S. domestic law. Furthermore, the “Global War on Terror” has not been fought “as a last resort,” with a realistic “goal of peace” and a reasonable” chance of success, which are among the necessary conditions required by jus adt bellum for the initiation of a “war to be just.”9 The ongoing “just war on terror(ism),” no matter how comprehensible as retaliation for TFB atrocities and mass murders, is unjust because the costs to civilians greatly exceed any perceived “benefits” in terms of revenge and “national security.”Instead, the conflict endures and escalates, without an endpoint in sight or a clear means of achieving, or recognizing (measuring), “victory” or even “defeat.”



lannan13

Pro

“Days will prove that the assassination policy will not finish the Hamas. Hamas leaders wish to be martyrs and are not scared of death. Jihad will continue and the resistance will continue until we have victory, or we will be martyrs,” because I agree with this position state Ahmend Yassin I deny the resolution is Targeted Killing a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

The Negative will advocate the value of Justice- The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law according to the freedictionary online. To support my value I offer the citation of Prevention of Collateral Damage. Collateral Damage according to Merriam Webster dictionary online, it refers to the inadvertatent casualties and destruction in civilian areas in the course of military operations. There are 2 independent justifications for the negative position in today’s debate.


Contention 1: Targeted Killings Backfire 1/2

----Targeted Killings are ineffective.

Patterson 05 (Eric Patterson, Associate Professor of Political Science at Vanguard University and Teresa Casale, Program Assistant on the California Stem Cell Program at the University of California, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE, "Targeting Terror: The Ethical and Practical Implications of Targeted Killing", 2005, p. asp, AL)

The second broad category of arguments against state-sponsored assassination is pragmatic in nature. One such argument is that assassination is simply impractical, with numerous reasons as to why this is so: assassination attempts have a high failure rate; are almost impossible to keep secret (at least after the fact); and the results aresimply unpredictable. For instance, the successful "knock-off" of a foreign leader may result in a cult of martyrdom and conservative policies by the ruling elite that are the exact opposite of the intended effect. A second pragmatic argument against assassination concerns how others will react. Terrorist networks and rogue states are likely to respond in kind to attempts against the lives of their leaders. For instance, in response to the decapitation attempt on Saddam Hussein in 2003 Jason Vest argued that, at best, it would exacerbate the conflict; at worst, it would result in assassination' s return as a tool of policy in international affairs. Chalmers Johnson made a similar claim about world opinion -- targeted strikes against individual terrorists would be seen as "thuggish" behavior and turn international public opinion against the United States.

----Targeted Killings kill innocent People.

Stein 03(Yael Stein, Research Director at the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, "By Any Name Illegal and Immoral", Vol. 17 No. 1, 2003, p. asp, AL)

David claimsthis policy is not only legal, but also just and moral. Although the policy "raises disturbing moral issues, . . . "he writes, "if it is carried out strictly against combatants in the legal sense outlined above, [the policy]can be defended from a moral perspective" (p. 121). As I showed, the policy is illegal and unjustifiable in legal terms. According to David' s own assertion, then, it cannot be considered moral either. David bases his argument on

the "just war tradition, " namely, if the killings are discriminate and proportionate, using only "enough force" to accomplish the task, causing no more destruction than they prevent, and directed only against those that pose the danger, it is moral. The assassination policy, however, does not meet these conditions. About a third of the people killed in the course of these attacks so far have been innocent bystanders, according to the army' s own admission. A good example is the killing of the Hamas official Salah Shahada, carried out in Gaza on July 22, 2002. Israel killed Shahada, his assistant, and thirteen other Palestinians, ten of them minors, including two infants. The one-ton bombdropped on the house caused extensive damage to the area. Although this is unquestionably the extreme instance ofthis policy, it is also a natural consequence of having adopted it in the first place.


Contention 1: Targeted Killings Backfire 2/2

----Terrorism destroys the mindset to end the war on Terror.

Blum and Heymann 10(Gabriella Blum and Philip Heymann, Assistant Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, HARVARD NATIONAL SECURITY JOURNAL, "Law and Policy of Targeted Killing", June 27, 2010, accessed 2.4.2012: http://www.law.upenn.edu..., AL)

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 targetedkillings, this, too, may bolster support for what seems like the just cause of the terrorists, at the same time as itweakens domestic support for fighting the terrorists.


Contention 2: Collateral Damage 1/2

----Backlash and Collateral Damage from TK outweights the benefits.

Patterson 05(Eric Patterson, Associate Professor of Political Science at Vanguard University and Teresa Casale, Program Assistant on the California Stem Cell Program at the University of California, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE, "Targeting Terror: The Ethical and Practical Implications of Targeted Killing", 2005, p. asp, AL)

Even a successful targeted killing can have negative consequences. For example, the target may become a martyr idolized in death, inspiring a new generation of radicals to take up arms against the U.S. Similarly, the successful attack on al-Harithi resulted in five other deaths, including that of an American. In that case, those in proximity of the attack were apparently al-Qaeda members and therefore combatants. But what if they had been al-Harithi' s wife and children? Israel' s assassination of Hamas founder Sheik Yassin is a case in point -- in addition to eliminating the "target, " the blast killed numerous civilian bystanders, including children. Undoubtedly, successful operations can come at too high a price in civilian casualties and collateral damage, not to mention the negative effects of world opinion.


Contention 2: Collateral Damage 2/2

----TK’s are self defeating the terrorists are just replaced.

Blum and Heymann 10(Gabriella Blum and Philip Heymann, Assistant Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, HARVARD NATIONAL SECURITY JOURNAL, "Law and Policy of Targeted Killing", June 27, 2010, accessed 2.4.2012: http://www.law.upenn.edu..., AL)

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.


Debate Round No. 1
Layne-vs-Kagan

Con

both mine and my opponents arguments prove that targeted killing is NOT a morally permissible tool in foreign policy
I feel that I should win, I won't waste your time in reiterating what has gone cold conceded.
lannan13

Pro

Oh I'm sory I posted my Con sorry
Debate Round No. 2
Layne-vs-Kagan

Con

Layne-vs-Kagan forfeited this round.
lannan13

Pro

Cheddar Cheese.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 5 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
Well, this is amusing.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
Layne-vs-Kaganlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued the wrong side. ff.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Layne-vs-Kaganlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: im lactose intolerant, i dont like cheese
Vote Placed by Atheism 5 years ago
Atheism
Layne-vs-Kaganlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Seriously? /facepalm
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
Layne-vs-Kaganlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm pretty sure Pro posted Con's case....
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Layne-vs-Kaganlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Derp
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Layne-vs-Kaganlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Lannan proved the con's case for him. There was no need to continue.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Layne-vs-Kaganlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: My eyes!!!
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
Layne-vs-Kaganlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Due to forfeit, and arguments..