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?