Targeted Killing By Daniel Straatman Analysis

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 …show more content…
Even in countries that did have involvement in terror, innocent civilians that have no say as to what they believe are ultimately caught in the crossfire. Targeted killing on the other hand saves lives and is the perfect response to the possible threat imposed by terrorist groups and the power their high authority leaders have. Statman implements Georg Nolte’s saying “the right to life must be protected most strictly”, and this must be regarded with the upmost importance, unless of course terrorist who have lost their right to life by taking the life of another. In Statman’s conclusion, he perfectly encompasses the effectiveness of targeting killing. Target killing is not only morally permissible but on the moral spectrum is a better option than conventional war methods. Adding to this, target killing is also a better option methodically, it gets more done in a more efficient way that leaves the lives of innocent people, groups, and countries out of the mix. Closing up is argument, Statman writes “at any rate, in most cases and in the long run, there is no convincing evidence that targeted killing is an ineffective means in fighting terror (517). I agree with this because it is