This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.
Uncategorized

Operation Geronimo

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.

Any subject. Any type of essay. We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.

GET YOUR PRICE

writers online

Operation Geronimo

 Geronimo is the code name that was given to the operation that involved two seal team squads, who used blackhawk helicopters to fly to Abbotabad in Pakistan to capture or kill the most wanted man by that time, Osama Bin Laden. Many reactions were experienced after the death of the Al Qaeda leader. Some were of joy, shock, elation while others were of relief. From this a debate emerged of the legality of the killing of Osama Bin Laden. This paper seeks to proove that the killing of Osama Bin Laden as ordered by the former president of the United States was legal under the international laws.

 

Legality of Operation Geromino

According to Dunlap (2019),since the killing of Osama Bin Laden administration officials have always claimed that Geromino mission was lawful in both international and domestic laws. When attorney general Eric Holder was addressing the congress, he said that Osama bin Laden was the leader and head of Al Qaeda, a terrorist group and his death was justified.

The Obama administration depended on the authority to utilize military force act of september 18th 2001, to justify the force they used to kill Osama bin Laden. The act gives authority to the head of state to use all the necessary force against the people who planned and authorized the attacks on September 11th. Obama’s administration also relied on the international laws from treaties and customary laws of war.

From these laws the Obama administration was allowed to use force was allowed under the international laws because of the conflict that had been there between Al Qaeda and the United States. The need to protect the United States from more attacks from Al Qaeda also justified the use of force. During a debate on the legality of killing foreign citizens the legal adviser of the United States, Harold Koh said that the killing of Bin Laden followed all the laws including the laws of war. As  Dunlap (2019), states that the Al Qaeda has not stopped its attempts to lauch attacks on the United State and so the U.S has the legal authority under ther international laws to apply force which includes lethal force to defend its citizen.

As the conflict between the United States and Al Qaeda do not include convectional forces the application of the international laws to protect innocent lives is more difficult but Obama’s administration has made sure that only the valid objectives were targetted and collateral damage was minimized to the fullest. Another issue that came up after the death of Bin Laden was wheather the United States military forces had the legal justification to shoot instead of capturing Osama Bin Laden alive.

The international law does not allow law enforcement in alien countries. Additionally, the military forces are to try and arrest their targets alive and the use of force is only allowed if the situation is all about self defence. Under these laws also the killing of unarmed innocent people even thou not planned would be termed as murder.Under the international laws, the United States army had the freedom to make substantial freedom to use force given that it was an operation that involved the militaly and Osama was an enemy likely to stage a deadly attack to the United States forces. In simpler terms the killing of Bin Laden there was never a violation against the prohibtion of attacking a defenceless person.

It is good to note that the law of armed conflict do not need the enemy in a war to have a chance to surrender before an attack; for this reason the attack on Bin Laden by the United States forces is lawful  even if the aim of the mission was to kill him rather than arrest him.

The administration in Pakistan also raised the question whether the United States had the justification to lauch an attack in their country or they were violating Pakistan’s Sovereignity. Under the international laws, the United States forces had a legal justification of attacking in the pakistan’s soil without notifiying the concerned Pakistan’s authority. The United States had the justification to believe that pakistan was unable to terminate the threat Osama Bin Laden was posing.

The U.S forces were also convinced that reporting about the attack was not a necessity due to close relationship between the taliban and the Pakistan Intelligence Services. These assumptions by the United states were also Backed by the fact that Osama Bin Laden was living in a house right down a street from a military base in Pakistan. The act of the United States launching an attack in Pakistan was a violation of the country’s sovereignnity under the international laws but the United states had a great argument, Pakistan was not in the capacity to deal with the threat paused by Bin Laden.

Other thing that makes the order of Obama to have Osama Bin Laden killed lawful was the fact that the $25 million prize the United States had promised as a reward to anyone who had information on Osama was not given. In a paragraph on the law of armed conflict- the DoD Law Of War Manual- it states that it is illegal to have a price on the head of an enemy or to give the reward wheather the enemy is dead or alive. The law of armed conflict also adds that offering rewards for the capture of an enemy is not prohibited  and there was no evidence that the reward offered by the United States was illegal.

Besides, the supreme court of the United States has a recognation that the president and his assistants are free to take alternatives while shaping and making decisions on policies and they are to do that in ways may would be unwilling to follow except privately. The court is also in support of the president’s previlage on communications as being fundamental to the activities of the government. This presidential previlege protects the general public in a sincere, objective and even rough opinion the president has to make.

According to Glazier (2017), he law of armed conflict have various core factors. The first one is necessity. This principles states that any force applied must be targeted to bringing the hostitity caused by the threat at hand to and absolute end. It also states that that these force must be guided by the other laws of the armed conflict. For instance killing to have revenge is not acceptable under these laws. The second fundamental principle under these laws is distinction. These indicated that any force applied must be against a legal military goal and must be used to differeciate it from the protected civial objects and persons.

The third principle on these laws is proportionality. This principle indicates that attacks can be conducted on legally valid military targets even if it may involve collateral damage. This applies as long as the civilian harm is not disprortionate to the military advantage. Lastly the last principle is all about humanity. This principle prohibits the use of means that can cause unnecessary suffering to the intended targets or the application of any unlawful weapons in any mission.

The attack and killing of Osama bin Laden met all these principles making it lawful. As he was publically known as the leader of Al Qaeda, his death had a great effect on the future and it ultimalely reduces the conflict. Obama’s administration choosing to use commados over the use destructive bombing and the effort to avoid the killing of innocent persons and destruction of property shows the application of proportionality and the distinction principle. Obama and his administration also showed concern on the humanity principles as the seal team used lawful military weapons.

From the above discussion it is evident that Obama and his administration acted under the law in planning and ordering the Geronimo operation to take place. Having acted under the international laws and following all the principles of the law of the armed conflict the former president of the United States acted lawfully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Dunlap, C. (2019, January 31). Yes, the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden was lawful. Lawfire. https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2019/01/31/yes-the-raid-that-killed-osama-bin-laden-was-lawful/

Glazier, D. (2017, May 3). ASSESSING THE LEGALITY OF OSAMA BIN LADEN’S KILLING. Pacific Standard. https://psmag.com/news/assessing-the-legality-of-osama-bin-ladens-killing-31441

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Remember! This is just a sample.

Save time and get your custom paper from our expert writers

 Get started in just 3 minutes
 Sit back relax and leave the writing to us
 Sources and citations are provided
 100% Plagiarism free
error: Content is protected !!
×
Hi, my name is Jenn 👋

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order

Check Out the Form
Need Help?
Dont be shy to ask