Legality and Execution of Operation Geronimo in U.S. National Security Context

Introduction

Although Operation Geronimo’s execution was disputed, the American President had every legal basis to make that choice. Osama bin Laden, the commander of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda, was killed in 2011 during Operation Geronimo, authorized by Barack Obama (Paagi, 2020). Bin Laden was in charge of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center buildings on the 11th of September, which prompted the United States to take immediate action (Paagi, 2020).

Operation Geronimo was consequently the appropriate reaction of the United States to the threat Al Qaeda presented to its safety, making Obama’s choice legitimate. The execution of an unarmed individual, forbidden by American law, is the main issue raised in the criticism of Operation Geronimo’s legal standing. The fact that bin Laden was defenseless when murdered says the assessment doubts the operation’s morality (Sinai, 2021). However, there is not enough evidence concerning the unarmed state of bin Laden. It states that Barack Obama had the legal authority to carry out Operation Geronimo as long as he defended American national security.

Discussion

Al Qaeda and bin Laden threatened American national security, prompting Barack Obama to announce Operation Geronimo. Lawmakers and academics concur that bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack, a significant factor in the American government’s aggressive response (Paagi, 2020). He was the one who fueled the animosity of Muslim terrorists toward the United States due to his status as the ideological leader (Schmid, 2023).

Due to the American government’s measures and its President’s choice, the country could stop further instances of murderous acts during prospective terrorist strikes (Sinai, 2021). It shows that the President’s command to carry out Operation Geronimo matched the political and strategic situations, rendering it legally legitimate. From an officially recognized standpoint, Operation Geronimo’s implementation was legitimate and aligned with American military norms. Consequently, from this angle, no legal disputes may be used to challenge the President’s choice. Osama bin Laden, widely regarded as humanity’s most dangerous terrorist, had to be arrested or eliminated, according to the instructions given to the group of agents.

It is critical to discuss the legality of Operation Geronimo in the context of international laws, mainly the principles of the Hague Rules of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1949. According to the Hague’s initiatives, the person has the right to surrender, and if they are killed deliberately instead, the violation of this principle is apparent. The Geneva Convention also guarantees life to a person who is not a combatant (Richard, 2019).

The argument states that killing Bin Laden was unjustified because these conventions guaranteed him life if he surrendered. There is no evidence that Osama bin Laden intended to surrender and was defenseless. Other armed individuals attempted to fight with the group of American officers in combat inside the home where the leader of Al Qaeda was at the time (Paagi, 2020). This information demonstrates how crucial it proved for the American soldiers to act quickly and immediately when conducting the operation. There was no prospect that the terrorist would turn himself in the US since every man who lived with him in the house made an effort to shield him.

Osama bin Laden had access to several firearms in the same room where he was killed. Due to this, he could grab weapons and utilize them to kill the American forces taking part in this operation. For instance, assuming one of the American officers did not shoot him during the arrest, he was carrying the Makarov handgun and the AKS-74U carbine at a short distance (Paagi, 2020).

This information demonstrates that Osama bin Laden did not belong to an unarmed civilian who desired to surrender based on all international conventions. It is a sufficient justification for the extreme measures taken by the American agents since their lives and the military operation’s objective were at stake. It allows presuming that Barack Obama’s directive to have Osama bin Laden killed in the operation was the appropriate course of action under the circumstances.

Another justification for President Obama’s legal decision is that it was made at the best location and moment to carry out Operation Geronimo. The time when the Al Qaeda commander was in a relatively vulnerable home located away from the cities was identified by American experts, notably military personnel and the CIA. The inquiry found that bin Laden spent nearly all his time in an underground bunker, which American authorities needed to demolish with 910 kg missiles. It is unnecessary to mention that the detonation would damage the neighboring homes and cause many casualties among the populace, which was undesirable (Paagi, 2020). It demonstrates that the President’s decision to initiate the mission was humane, ethically, and legally sound.

Conclusion

In conclusion, President Obama made a legally correct choice regarding carrying out Operation Geronimo. The evidence demonstrated that Osama bin Laden would not voluntarily hand himself into the hands of American officers, and it would be a complication for the mission’s objectives. As a result, soldiers had the authority to execute the terrorist group’s leader without allowing him to reach for weapons. The plan’s specifics also attempted to reduce the number of potential civilian casualties.

Al Qaeda’s threat to American national security was the primary consideration used to determine whether Barack Obama was legally justified in his actions. Hence, all decisions made throughout Operation Geronimo followed American laws and the fundamentals of protecting the country’s safety. It renders the President’s choice and how the plan was brought into action legitimate.

References

Pašagić, A. (2020). Failed states and terrorism: Justifiability of transnational interventions from a counterterrorism perspective. Perspectives on Terrorism, 14(3), 19–28. Web.

Richard, T. (2019). Combatant and prisoner-of-war status. In Unofficial United States guide to the first additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949(pp. 70–82). Air University Press.

Schmid, A. P. (2023). Defining terrorism. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism. Web.

Sinai, J. (2021). Review of the rise and fall of Osama bin Laden. Perspectives on Terrorism, 15(5), 93–93. Web.