Vicki Divoll, former CIA lawyer, argues that "mechanized killing is still killing," and while I agree with this, I would like to know how she would suggest the US prevents future acts of terrorism. The utilitarian model would argue that killing one person and its followers is the right course of action, as long as it is preventing the deaths of numbers of innocent people. If the US were not to pursue this target, then are they partially responsible for the deaths of whoever suffered the terrorist attack? Those who equate allowing a death as morally bad as causing the death itself may argue that he US is responsible for any future acts of terrorism against the country because they had not prevented it; so back to my original question, what else may the US do to prevent terrorism and protect our country if it is morally impermissible, and illegal, to take the problem out by its roots (meaning killing whoever is going to kill)? We do not look down upon soldiers, who partake in whatever death necessary in order to protect our country - so how may this be considered any different? Just because a target on a soldier's back is smaller in comparison to the target that could be on the US's back?