Analysis Of Daniel Statman 's Target Killing Essay

974 Words Oct 1st, 2016 4 Pages
After evaluating these two readings, Daniel Statman’s “Targeted Killing” is the reading that I agreed with the most. Generally, I don’t think killing someone is always the best thing to do, but in the case that someone may pose a bigger threat in the future, I believe it is justifiable. Additionally, I believe in some cases the doctrine of if you kill you shall be killed as punishment. Statman believes that war on terror is much different than conventional war and must be dealt with differently, and that the West is not adequately prepared for these means of threat. Statman immediately catches my attention when he states “… tanks, jets, and submarines are helpful when confronting other tanks, jets, and submarines, not hijackers carrying knives or terrorists wearing explosive belts” (511). This effectively displays how different terror must be combated. Targeted killings i.e. assassination is one possible way to fight terror, albeit less common, is necessary to fight terror successfully. Additionally, pertaining to war on terror, terrorists are not fought directly per se. Statman states “however, unlike enemy soldiers in conventional wars, terrorists are embedded amidst the civilian population and can be hit only in their homes, cars, and so forth (515). I agree with this whole heartedly because in a conventional war two oppositions are fighting each other on the battlefield forefront and with direct exposure to one another, whereas in a terror war persons of interest are in…

Related Documents