Targeted Killing Ethics Paper

This purpose of this paper is to discuss the ethics of conducting targeted killings outside designated combat zones using the three ethical lenses of rules, virtues, and outcomes. Former Director Leon Panetta praised airstrikes using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) as an effective way to target terrorist leadership within Pakistan during a speech in 2009 given to the Pacific Council on International Policy (Benson, 2009). Air strikes by UAVs also referred to as targeted killings, are deemed effective due to their precision and ability to neutralize a single individual with no or few collateral civilian casualties. The role of armed UAVs and their application against targets outside a declared theater of armed conflict (DTAC) did not occur without
The United States uses a legal framework of the LOAC that adds credibility and legitimacy to targeted killing strikes. International interpretation of the laws differ and fuels dissension with US justification under the law regarding current practices. It is not surprising then that the United States has continuously utilized this legal framework as its strongest argument supporting its targeted killing policy and refute claims that it violates international law.
Virtues Lense
The virtues perspective of the ethics of targeted killing is a battle between good and evil. The extremist that the U.S. is fighting is attempting to advance an unjust cause. Terrorists are fanatics that primarily target civilians. They are principled evil doers because they are not operating in self-interest. Their goal is not to gain something for themselves such wealth or power. They are not ordinary criminals. Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist in this category. They truly believe in their cause, and their brand of evil requires its removal from the face of the earth.