Operation Geronimo was commissioned by Us President Barack Obama in 2011 and aimed to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden. The US special intelligence noticed a house on the northern border of Pakistan where an Al-Qaeda courier frequented. In addition, the compound has one person who never left but was always receiving Al-Qaeda couriers. This made them believe that this was Osama Bin Laden hiding in that compound, although there was no clear confirmation if it was him. The president ordered an elite military team of Navy Seal Six to raid, capture, or kill Osama. The mission was carried out successfully; however, on May 2, 2011, when President Obama announced the killing of Osama, the news was received with mixed reactions. There were concerns about killing and not capturing him, human rights law, NATO agreement policies, and other claims that questioned the operation’s legality. This study evaluates the issues to determine whether Operation Geronimo was legal or not. It was found that Operation Geronimo was carried out lawfully and within the US constitution and International Laws.
The Law of Armed Conflict
The US was legally right to apply the Law of Armed Conflict against Alqaeda after declaring that they were in charge of the 9/11 events. Militaries use the Law of Armed Conflict in times of combat to ensure that humanitarian values are obeyed and civilians are protected. Before the 9/11 event, there was much controversy about whether the Law of Armed Conflict could be used against non-state individuals (Dunlap, 2019). However, after the incident that killed over 2,900 Americans, it was agreed that America had launched an armed conflict with Alqaeda. Since Osama was controlling Alqaeda operations, he was capable of being attacked anywhere at any time by the US military. Osama had caused much pain in American families after the 9/11 attack, whereby some lost parents, relatives, coworkers, and friends (Dunlap, 2019). This guaranteed the US government to declare war on Osama and the Alqaeda. Thus, it was lawful to use the Law of Armed Conflict against Osama because he was the US’s number one enemy.
International Humanitarian Law
The killing of Osama was within the International Humanitarian Law because he declined to surrender. According to the International Humanitarian Law, which is based on limiting conflicts and ensuring that justice is served, Osama should have been captured and tried in a court of law before being executed. However, according to the information the Navy Seals gave, the mission was to capture or kill Osama (Dunlap, 2019). However, during the murder of Osama, the Navy Seal was not in control of him, which implies that he posed a threat or could have retaliated. If Osama had been under the control of the Navy Seal by surrendering, he would have been captured rather than executed. According to Owen, One of the Seals who were in the mission, despite Osama being shot multiple times, was still moving, and his hands could not be seen (Paust, 2020). There was a handful of explosives within reach of his hands, implying that he might have retaliated, leading the Seals to kill him. This shows that the International Humanitarian Law was followed because if he had surrendered, he could have been captured instead of killed.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Operations Geronimo had been lawfully approved by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It works closely with the UN security council to manage conflicts, prevent crises, and offer solutions to most conflict situations (Dunlap, 2019). NATO had provided the US with the legal authority to conduct operations in various countries that posed security threats (NATO, 2019). Since Al Qaeda was one of the most advanced terrorist groups in Asia and had carried out an attack on the USA, it was considered a threat to other NATO countries. Thus, using one of their member states, the US legally launched a raid that led to the killing of Osama. In addition, the documents found after the raid showed that some Asian countries were protecting Osama as his home was a few miles from a military base in Pakistan (Dunlap, 2019). Osama had resided in Pakistan without any disruption by the government, which showed that NATO had to take charge of ensuring that Osama was arrested or killed. This implies that under the NATO treaty, the US was lawful to conduct Operation Genorima, which led to the killing of Osama.
The Hague Conventions and Regulations
The US administration had logical and legal reasons for breaching the Hague Conventions and Regulations mentioned in sections V and XIII. Section XIII subsection 353 discusses subjugation; it is unlawful to conduct military operations in a sovereign land without informing the government (International Committee of The Red Cross, 2019). However, the US entered Pakistan and conducted a raid without informing the government based on the law applicable to nations that are “unwilling or unable” to take the necessary action. In such circumstances, the US has the right to use force to ensure that the effection actions are taken (International Committee of The Red Cross, 2019). Osama resided in Pakistan for nearly a decade, undisturbed by the government despite conducting terrorist actions against the US. This shows that the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling to take the necessary action against Osama. Thus, the US used force to ensure Osama was captured or killed. The US administration declined to tell the Pakistan government about their invasion because they suspected he would be tipped and escape. It implies that the US government had a legal reason to breach the sovereignty of Pakistan.
Geneva Convention
The US had to kill Osama instead of capturing him because although he was wounded, he presented a threat to the navy seals. According to the Geneva convention, the wounded, shipwrecked, and sick soldiers in times of war who are considered defenseless or unconscious should not be killed (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2020). This is in a policy known as Hors De Combat; thus, critics consider that after shooting Osama multiple times and wounded him, the Navy Seals should have captured him instead of killing him. However, in their response, America stated that despite being wounded, Osama was still moving, and his hands could not be seen. Due to the possibility of having explosives such as hand grenades or explosive jackets, they opted to shoot him while wounded. If Osama had shown his hands and stayed in a single position without moving, the Navy Seals would have captured him instead of killing him. When the president issued orders at the seals, the instructions were to capture or kill (Dunlap, 2019). This shows that the US acted within Geneva Convection policies and had to shoot at wounded Osama because he was still moving and his hands could not be seen.
Rules of Engagement
The controversy about the adherence to the Rules of War was satisfied when it was noted that the residents in Osama’s place were the first to open fire. During Osama’s killing, other people, including his son, his courier, his brother from Al-Kuwait, and the brother’s wife, were killed (Paust, 2020). These people were killed for portraying resistance and opening fire on the US Navy Seals. When the raid was conducted, all did not go as planned as the first plane transporting the Navy Seals hit Osama’s compound. This raised the alarm that they were being invaded, and instantly, they opened fire in the direction of the crush. According to the Rules of War, if the enemy combatant opens fire, the military should open fire too in retaliation if necessary (Corn, 2017). Thus, Osama’s associates’ decision to open fire led the US Navy Seals to open fire. Thus, since the US did not open fire first, it satisfies that they obeyed the Rules of War.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Operation Geronimo was with the international law and the US constitution by ensuring that it followed all legal procedures in conducting the raid that led to the death of Osama. The US had the legal right to armed conflict with Alqaeda, the terrorist group in charge of 9/11. Second, Osama was killed instead of being arrested because he declined to surrender. NATO had approved Operation Geronimo by giving one of their member states, the US, a go-ahead to capture or kill the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama. The US government satisfied Heague Convection and Regulations concerning sovereignty by using the legal process of Pakistan being “unable or unwilling” to take necessary action against Osama. Although Osama had been wounded, he was still moving and had his hands hidden which made him be killed after being wounded by the Navy Seals. Finally, since his associates started to open fire, the US was within the Rules of War to retaliate because that was considered a threat. This shows that Operation Geronimo was conducted lawfully and legally within the US constitution and international law.
References
Corn, G. (2017). The newly relaxed rules of engagement in Afghanistan and civilian casualties. Just Security. Web.
Dunlap, C. (2019). Yes, the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden was lawful. Lawfire. Web.
International Committee of The Red Cross. (2019). Treaties, States Parties, and Commentaries – Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols, and their Commentaries. Icrc.org. Web.
International Committee of the Red Cross. (2020). Updated Commentary brings fresh insights on continued relevance of Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war. Www.icrc.org. Web.
NATO. (2019). Relations with the United Nations. NATO. 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.