Operation Geronimo involved the killing of the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, in May 2011 in Pakistan, which has received much controversy. Some people support that Obama was right to attack Osama in Pakistan, while others questioned his decision and the operation’s legality. Sometimes, it can be seen as a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and an abuse of human rights. Therefore, President Obama had to justify his move to conduct the operation.
The public opinion of the US citizens supported the president and military force actions because of the ongoing conflict between the USA and Al-Qaeda. On the contrary, Human Rights Movements such as Human Rights Watch and the United Nations demonstrated concerns about the possible violations of international law by the US president. However, this study supports the notion that President Obama had the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and execute the plan.
One of the controversial topics was whether the assassination of Osama Bin Laden was lawful. Hay Parks, a Department of Defense official in 1989, wrote about the legal meaning of assassination (Dunlap, 2019). He wrote explaining the application of Executive Order 12333’s which prohibited assassination. According to his explanation, peacetime assassination involves killing a public or private figure for political reasons (Dunlap, 2019).
This type of assassination is prohibited by international law even if no specific law proscribes it. Hay Park explained the difference between peacetime assassination and wartime assassination. He stated that combatants are always targets despite being in times of war or when there is no war (Dunlap, 2019). Therefore, when such attacks are conducted, they do not constitute assassination not unless they are conducted in a treacherous manner, which is not allowed according to Article 23(b) of the 1907 Hague IV (Paust, 2020). This implies that this law does not prohibit commando raids and other attacks behind enemy lines, which implies that the killing of Osama cannot be considered an assassination. Operation Geronimo responded to the ongoing US and Al-Qaeda war aimed at killing specific leaders.
Another issue of concern was based on the cross-border operation carried out by the US government in Operation Geronimo. The operation was carried out in Pakistan without advance notification or permission from the Pakistan government. To help solve this issue, the US government used the legal concept of “unwilling or unable.” According to the US government, Pakistan was “unwilling or unable” to take action against actors within their borders who threatened Americans (Dunlap, 2019). In such a case, the US can effectively use force against such actors or threats without involving the nation’s sovereignty. According to the secretary of Defense at that time, Leon Panetta, Pakistan was unwilling to take necessary action against Osama because he had resided in the country for nine years (Dunlap, 2019).
He would be tipped off and escape whenever they alerted the Pakistani government. Osama resided close to a military camp in the Northern part of the country, which showed that he was involved in the Pakistan government (Paust, 2020). Therefore, with these factors considered, the US was justified to carry out a cross-border operation without involving the Pakistan government.
Hors De Combat was another critical issue raised by the international community regarding Operation Geronimo. According to Hors De Combat, it is wrong to attack someone who is defenseless due to shipwreck, sickness, wounds, or unconsciousness (Paust, 2020). However, being wounded alone does not qualify a person to be in Hors De Combat. Many wounded people are known to continue fighting despite their wounds in the annals of military history. In Osama’s case, some of these rules could not apply because it was anticipated that Osama had a bulletproof vest and other explosives readily accessible. According to an interview with one of the Seals who engaged him, Mark Owen, he states that despite the raid and Osama being wounded, he was still in motion (Dunlap, 2019).
According to the DOD Law of War Manual, paragraph 2.2.3.1 states that the law of armed conflict does not require the enemy militants to be given a chance to surrender before being attacked (Paust, 2020). Therefore, if the mission was to kill Osama without capturing him, it is still not unlawful due to that reason.
President Barack Obama had the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and Execute the plan because he did not break any international law. Regarding the order to assassinate Osama, it was argued that it was not unlawful to kill Osama because the US commandos were in an ongoing war with Al-Qaeda. This authorized the killing of anyone connected to the terrorist group, including its leaders. The issue of cross-border operation was solved using the “unwilling or unable” policy by the US government. It was evident that the Pakistani government was unwilling or unable to take necessary action against Osama, who resided in the country for a decade without any serious action being taken against him.
In addition, the US government did not trust the Paki9stan government because had they briefed them before, Osama would have been tipped off and escaped. Regarding Hore De Combat, it was stated that despite Osama being wounded, he was still moving and did not show any signs of surrendering, hence why he was killed and not captured. This shows that Operation Geronimo was lawful and conducted within the laws of the US Cand international community.
References
Dunlap, C. (2019). Yes, the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden was lawful. Lawfire. Web.
Paust, J. (2020). Permissible self-defense targeting and the death of Bin Laden. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, 39(4), 570–583. Web.