Osama bin Laden, the founder and leader of the Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda, had been the target of the United States for the longest time. According to Mazhar and Goraya (2020), then-president Bill Clinton made the official announcement regarding bin Laden’s arrest, dead or alive, as far back as in 1992. Almost twenty years later, it was practically executed by another president, Barack Obama. On May 2, 2011, the world observed the death of the al-Qaeda mastermind, who after 9/11 became one of the world’s most wanted men. The raid in which American Navy SEALs took over his Abottabad, Pakistan compound to capture bin Laden was titled Mission Geronimo. The entire mission was reportedly watched live by Obama and his staff, who were prominent advocates for justice and human rights. The question of whether then-president had the legal authority to execute the operation is discussed by many to this day. This paper states that Obama was rightfully authorized to the mission’s execution due to it being justified legally and due to the threat that bin Laden possessed to the United States and the world.
First of all, some might wonder if the Law of Armed Conflict, or LOAC, could be applied to this case. As per Louisiana State University (2019), LOAC is restricted to conflicts that have adequate intensity and scope to authorize treatment under the legal regime of ‘war’, and not every terrorist can be targeted under it. There once even was some debate over whether LOAC could pertain terrorists as non-state actors; however, 9/11 made it no longer a matter of contention. In any event, Soherwordi and Khattak (2020) state that the United States has long held the view that it and al-Qaeda are in an armed conflict, and it has been confirmed by the administration. Thus, the most appropriate reading of the law is: non-state terrorists that are representatives of organized armed groups constantly involved in combat operations can be legitimately targeted much like representatives of traditional armed forces. There were little to no doubts about bin Laden’s central role in al-Qaeda’s operations, and documents obtained during the raid only corroborated it (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). In accordance with it, bin Laden could have legitimately been attacked almost at any time and anywhere.
Another issue some see with the killing is that it might be regarded an assassination. According to Dunlap (2019), a Department of Defense appointee named W. Hays Parks wrote a memorandum in 1989 that addressed the legal meaning of the term. It stated that “[p]eacetime assassination… would seem to encompass the murder of a private individual or public figure for political purposes” (Dunlap, 2019). However, Parks made a distinction between such killings and killings of combatants in wartime. According to him, “[c]ombatants are legitimate targets, regardless of their duties or activities at the time of the attack. Such attacks do not constitute assassination unless carried out in a “treacherous” manner” (Dunlap, 2019). While it is not exactly clear what ‘treacherous’ might mean, among the numerous examples of admissible military killings Parks cited a World War II operation that led to the death of Isoroku Yamamoto. He was a Japanese admiral who orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbor and can be compared to Osama bin Laden in that regard. Therefore, a case can be made that bin Laden’s death was not the result of an assassination.
Moreover, there were discussions immediately after the raid that it was executed in Pakistan without the authorization or even prior notification of the country’s government. In this setting, America relied on a legal concept pertinent to states ‘unwilling or unable’ to effectually take measures against entities within their borders that pose a threat to Americans (Martin, 2019). In some ways, Pakistan had the theoretical ability to have acted against bin Laden; however, he lived there untroubled for many years. It is thus to be concluded that the country was ‘unable’ to take effectuate measures against bin Laden. In such a situation, it was the right that the United States reserved, to use force against the threat.
Finally, there were questions regarding the need to kill bin Laden, as he, upon being shot, was hors de combat, that is, injured and, therefore, not able to act. However, someone being injured does not necessarily mean they are hors de combat. In fact, according to Dunlap (2019), the chronicles of military history are full of cases in which badly wounded were still able to fight. When it comes to bin Laden, Americans had anticipated him to have free access to various explosives. Therefore, the unwillingness of the raiders to take risks when capturing one of the world’s most wanted was justified.
In conclusion, Mission Geronimo, that is, the killing of Osama bin Laden, was rightfully legally authorized by the President of the United States. First of all, the Law of Armed Conflict was applicable to the operation. Moreover, the inability of Pakistan to take action against bin Laden gave USA the right to act. In addition to that, bin Laden was a legitimate target as a combatant in wartime and Americans could not have risked not killing him even when he was injured. Therefore, the United States did what it should have done and the mission was lawful and justified.
References
Dunlap, C. (2019). Yes, the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden was lawful. Duke University.
Louisiana State University. (2019). Basics of Law of Armed Conflict.
Martin, C. (2019). Challenging and refining the “unwilling or unable” doctrine. Vanderbult Journal of Transnational Law, 52(2), 1-77.
Mazhar, M. S., & Goraya, N. S. (2020). An analytical study of Pak-US relations: Post Osama (2011-2012). South Asian Studies, 27(1), 77-87. Web.
Soherwordi, S. H. S., & Khattak, S. A. (2020). Operation Geronimo: Assassination of Osama bin Ladin and its implications on the US-Pakistan relations, War on Terror, Pakistan and Al-Qaeda. South Asian Studies, 26(2), 349-365. Web.