Aff blocks. States 2012 Just war 1.

Turn the negative argument of Just war as is functions under the premise that war is justified, which satisfies the affirmative burden to win. 2. I link into proportionality (just war doctrine), as all men on the battlefield are equal, which is therefore proportional/mutually assured damage. 3. I link into imminent threat (just war). We can logically assume that two soldiers standing directly in front of one another with weapons would be an imminent threat. Diplomacy would hold no weight in this situation, for any many could attack without notice. As I have previously explained, soldiers must hegemoniously act in interest of the state. 4. Drop the noncombatant argument because A: Soldiers on battle field are combatants which links directly into the aff. B: A noncombatant goes against the just war doctrine because it unjustly gives immunity to a man who could be causing a larger magnitude of damage than the average soldier. The neg is advocating for a no action policy by the affirmative. It is unjust to allow a tyrant to persist simply because the target is a non combatant.

Vote on Hegemony because I link into the just war as well as uphold morality in the majority of cases, rather than one case as my opponent does. Abuses of power Whether abuses of power happen or not is irrelevant. Abuse of power is moral under hegemony. Abuse shows control, which allows for one true power, which would be an ultimate good in the end Furthermore, abuses dont actually happen. Heg solves its own flaws. History proves that because other countries strive for hegemonic status they take down immoral hegemons (any oppressive dictator). Therefore it lays out a moral check on the pursuit of hegemony so hegemony is morally permissible. Alternatives
Targeted killings are better than the alternatives Statman in 2003 writes
Third, while assassination does involve some moral risk, it also has a chance of achieving better results from a moral point of view. Think of a battle in a conventional war against an enemy unit. Assume it can be won either by bombing the unit from the air, killing 200 soldiers, or by having its headquarters targeted by an intelligent missile, killing most of the commanders of the unit say, 25 officers. If both tactics could achieve the same result, then surely the second tactic should be morally preferred. Similarly, if Bin Laden and 30 of his close partners had been

targeted, that would have been far better than killing thousands of people and causing enormous damage in Afghanistan, in a war whose contribution to the cessation of world terror is far from clear.

Alternative (International Criminal Court)

ICC WOULD NOT SOLVE Lynch, 2001 Timothy Lynch, Director for Project on Criminal Justice at the CATO institute, Statement before Senate Judiciary Committee and United States Senate on December 4, 2001. accessed 8/2/06 from http://www.cato.org/testimony/cttl120401.html In recent years there has been much discussion surrounding the creation of an "International Criminal Court" (ICC). The idea here is to establish a permanent court that can try individuals for war crimes, genocide, and other crimes against humanity. To become effective, the ICC Treaty requires 60 nations to ratify its provisions. Thus far, only 43 nations have signed off on the treaty. However, even if the ICC treaty were ratified tomorrow, it provisions are not retroactive and could not be applied against terrorists for the vicious attacks on the World Trade Center. Thus, on closer examination, this is not a feasible possibility. There are, in any event, many good reasons to withhold U.S. support for such a tribunal. See Dempsey, "Reasonable Doubt: The Case Against the Proposed International Criminal Court," Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 311 (July 16, 1998).