Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Operation Geronimo was a special Navy Seal operation that President Obama launched in pursuit of Osama Bin Laden. The CIA had gathered intelligence on an Al Qaeda courier who frequently visited a walled residence in Abbottabad, Pakistan (Napier, 2021). After conducting more investigation, they found out that it was the secret hideout of Osama Bin Laden, although this had not been fully confirmed. After considering various methods which could be used, the most appropriate was an airstrike or raid. However, since an airstrike could cause more casualties, they decided to use a raid (Napier, 2021). When President Barack Obama announced that the US had successfully killed Osama, there was much controversy as some people supported the actions while others questioned the mission. Those who were against the mission raised issues on the application of the law of armed conflict, the assassination of Osama instead of arrest, cross-border operations, and hors de combat. However, this study proposes that the raid that led to the killing of Osama was lawfully done.
Operation Geronimo
One of the issues raised against Osamas killing was applying the law of armed conflict. Those against the killing were unsure whether Osama was targetable under the law of armed conflict. In the past, the law only applied to people who caused intense conflict enough to warrant a war. This had been a controversial issue in the US until the 9/11 attack, which made the US declare an armed conflict against Al-Qaeda (Dunlap, 2019). In addition, non-state terrorist personnel who are directly or indirectly involved in a continuous combat operation can be subjected to targeting. After the raid, the documents that were found proved that Osama was operating with Al-Qaeda and the Pakistan government officials. According to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, the US is allowed to target the leader of Al-Qaeda and any other person who posed a threat to the US as a self-defense mechanism (Paust, 2020). He presented a threat to the US as a country and was responsible for US military personnel attacks and other US nationals in Afghanistan, showing that he was lawfully targetable.
The other concern was about the assassination of Osama instead of being arrested and tried lawfully. International Law and the US constitution are against the assassination of any person except in a conflict zone or as the last option (Paust, 2020). Killing Osama without a fair trial might have been an issue for many people who were against the US raid. However, looking at the potential lives that he had taken and the harm he had caused for thousands of American families, he deserved to die. For instance, the 9/11 attack in which he claimed responsibility that killed over 2900 Americans at their workplaces showed that he had no mercy for humankind (Napier, 2021). In addition, on the day of the raid, Obama was unarmed but unwilling to surrender. He had some weapons under his reach, implying that he posed a threat to the Navy Seals. When the seals arrived at his compound, they were received with heavy resistance using firearms (Napier, 2021). This shows that the killing of Osama was the last option, keeping in mind that he would not have hesitated to kill them.
When President Obama announced the killing of Osama, another issue of controversy was the cross-border operations. The US clearly stated that they went to Pakistan and killed several of their nationals without their consent. The US can lawfully use force in a foreign land where respective governments are unwilling or unable to take the right action (Dunlap, 2019). Since Osama stayed in Pakistan for several years, undisturbed warranted the governments unwillingness or inability to pursue him (Dunlap, 2019). That is why the mission was conducted without the consent of the Pakistan government because the US believed that if it were informed, they would tip him off. In addition, Osama posed a threat to the US government, and the Pakistan government was not willing or unable to take action; it gave the US a responsibility to take action. The UN congress did not complain about the infringement of Pakistans sovereignty but stated that it welcomed the news because no religion, civilization group or country should be associated with terrorism (Dunlap, 2019). This shows that the US had all the legal rights to inform the Pakistan government of the raid.
The Hors de combat policy regards the killing of a person who is incapable of performing combat duties. Since Osama had already been shot multiple times, some critics questioned his killing because he had gone into a state of Hors de combat (Dunlap, 2019). According to International Law, it is not lawful to attack a defenseless person due to wounds, shipwreck, sickness, or unconscious (Paust, 2020). However, the US argued that being wounded did not put Osama in Hors de combat because, in most military actions, soldiers badly injured were known to continue fighting. In Osamas case, the seals were worried that he would have a bulletproof vest on or was ready to continue fighting even after being shot multiple times because explosives were within reach of his arms. According to one of the Seals in the mission interviewed by CBS, he stated that when Osama was shot, he was still moving, and his arms could not be seen (Dunlap, 2019). This forced them to continue shooting him until he was dead. This indicates that there was no violation of the Hors de combat.
The Obama administration faced criticism over the $25 million which had been placed as a bounty on any information that led to the capture of Osama. Since the lump sum amount was not paid, some people felt that the government unfairly used the reward as bait without honoring the process (Dunlap, 2019). In addition, other activists were concerned about the governments ability to place a huge amount of bounty on a person. According to the DoD Law of War Manual, it is illegal to price someone (Dunlap, 2019). However, Congress had revised the law and put exemptions on information that could lead to finding militants fighting the US army and unharmed army personnel (Dunlap, 2019). Thus, since Osama was an active enemy combatant, it was lawfully right to place a reward on him because US combatants could use such information to attack him.
Finally, President Obama and his administration received much criticism for using the military to target specific individuals. President Obama was within the US constitution and International Law to execute military actions against a purported US enemy (Paust, 2020). In addition, he had been granted permission by Congress to use the military capability to apply appropriate force concerning Al-Qaeda and Osama. According to the supreme court, using the word appropriate implied that he was allowed to act within the US and international laws to pursue Obama and Al-Qaeda (Paust, 2020). The US Congress can allow the start and stop of war by deciding whether the president should use the military in a foreign land. Since Congress had permitted him, it implied that he had acted with the US constitution and International law to raid Osama in Pakistan.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Operation Geronimo has lawfully been conducted in the interests of the US and the international community. President Obamas government had used lawful means to conduct a raid in Pakistan, which led to the killing of Osama. Some of the reasons that prove the operation was lawful include that he was a targetable person because he had connections to Al-Qaeda and posed a national threat to the US. His assassination was called for because it was the last option after he refused to surrender. A cross-border operation was justified by the threat he posed to the US and the inability or unwillingness of the Pakistan government to take effective action. Hors de combat policy was not applicable in his case because despite being wounded, Osama was still moving, and his arms were not visible, implying that he was capable of fighting back. The criticism over the reward on his head was settled by the fact that information leading to him would help US military combatants to fight an enemy combatant. Therefore, the raid that led to the killing of Osama was lawful, and the US had all the legal rights to conduct it.
References
Dunlap, C. (2019). Yes, the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden was lawful. Lawfire. Web.
Napier, W. (2021). OPERATION Neptune Spear: 10 year anniversary. Nellis Air Force Base. Web.
Paust, J. (2020). Permissible self-defense targeting and the death of Bin Laden permissible self-defense targeting and the death of Bin Laden. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, 39(4). Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.