LNAT Practice Test Essay – Is it ethical for governments to use targeted killings as a counterterrorism measure? Discuss.

In the LawMint LNAT Practice Test Series for 2024 and 2025, there are 30 full length tests, with 360 passages – 1260 MCQs and 90 essay prompts or essay questions.

The essay below is a sample that can be written for the prompt:

Is it ethical for governments to use targeted killings as a counterterrorism measure? Discuss.

This LNAT essay question is included in LawMint LNAT Practice Test series.

While the model essays may include both sides of an argument, the question may require you to state your stance - either for or against; and support it with arguments.

Read our articles and watch the videos on our YouTube channel for guidance on how to structure and write the LNAT Essay.

Introduction

Targeted killings, which involve the deliberate and premeditated use of lethal force against specific individuals, have become a contentious issue in the realm of counterterrorism. Governments often justify these actions as necessary to protect national security and prevent further acts of terrorism. However, targeted killings raise ethical concerns about the value of human life, the right to due process, and the potential for abuse of power. This essay will discuss the ethical implications of using targeted killings as a counterterrorism measure, considering arguments for and against the practice.

Ethical Arguments in Favor of Targeted Killings

Protection of National Security: Proponents of targeted killings argue that they are an essential tool for maintaining national security. By eliminating key figures within terrorist organizations, governments can disrupt their operations, prevent future attacks, and protect innocent lives. In this context, targeted killings are seen as a necessary and proportional response to the grave threat posed by terrorism.

Minimizing Collateral Damage: Targeted killings, when executed with precision, can minimize collateral damage by focusing on specific individuals rather than employing broader military strategies that may result in greater harm to civilians. Advocates argue that this precision makes targeted killings a more ethical option compared to alternatives such as airstrikes or ground operations, which can have devastating consequences for civilian populations.

Deterrence: Some argue that targeted killings can serve as a deterrent, discouraging potential terrorists from engaging in violent activities due to the fear of being targeted themselves. In this sense, targeted killings can be seen as a preemptive measure aimed at preventing future terrorist attacks and protecting the lives of innocent civilians.

Ethical Arguments Against Targeted Killings

Right to Due Process: Critics of targeted killings argue that they violate the fundamental right to due process, which guarantees individuals the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law before being deprived of their life or liberty. By bypassing judicial processes, targeted killings can result in the execution of individuals without trial or proof of guilt, raising concerns about the potential for arbitrary or wrongful killings.

Erosion of Moral and Legal Standards: The use of targeted killings as a counterterrorism measure can erode moral and legal standards by normalizing extrajudicial killings and undermining respect for the rule of law. This erosion of standards can lead to a slippery slope, where the threshold for justifying targeted killings becomes increasingly lower, and the potential for abuse of power grows.

Counterproductive Effects: Some argue that targeted killings can be counterproductive in the fight against terrorism, as they may fuel resentment, radicalize populations, and create a cycle of violence. By eliminating specific individuals, governments may inadvertently create martyrs, which can inspire others to take up arms and perpetuate the cycle of violence.

Conclusion

The ethics of using targeted killings as a counterterrorism measure are complex and multifaceted. On one hand, targeted killings can be seen as a necessary and proportional response to the threat of terrorism, with potential benefits in terms of national security, minimizing collateral damage, and deterrence. On the other hand, concerns about the right to due process, erosion of moral and legal standards, and potential counterproductive effects cannot be ignored.

Ultimately, the ethical implications of targeted killings depend on the specific context, the methods used, and the legal frameworks that govern their use. To ensure the ethical application of targeted killings, governments must adhere to strict criteria, prioritize transparency and accountability, and continually evaluate the effectiveness and consequences of their actions. By engaging in an open and informed debate about the ethical implications of targeted killings, societies can better navigate the complex and challenging landscape of counterterrorism and uphold the values and principles that define them.