Justification for the Elimination of Osama bin Laden
From my perspective, Obama’s directive to eliminate Osama bin Laden was appropriate. Terrorist crimes encroach on the life and health of people, endanger the security of the entire State, disorganize the political situation, and disrupt stability in society. In this regard, various legal situations are being conducted in the United States to respond to potential acts of terrorism. One of these operations was Operation Geronimo, during which Barack Obama decided to eliminate Osama bin Laden, which I believe was a reasonable order.
Terrorism, which has entered the everyday life of the United States in its forms and guises, has proved to be an effective means and method of attack. Accordingly, it is necessary to improve the organizational basis for countering terrorism. Obama’s actions made it possible not only to create adequate mechanisms for the legal regulation of anti-terrorist activities (Mustafa et al., 2020). The president has made a decision ahead of the criminals by several steps.
The legislative norms trace the conditions under which public authorities can cause harm. The elimination team may recoil because they believe that a person was captured doing a terrorist act, preventing a terrorist act, or taking other counterterrorism steps. (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2019). At the same time, the notion of fighting terrorism is described by legislation as the recognition, suppression, prevention, disclosure, and investigation of a terrorist act. It follows from this that State authorities may cause harm when countering terrorism in the course of activities directly related to a terrorist act.
Legal and Strategic Grounds for Action
It was this circumstance that, based on the law, endowed Barack Obama as an authorized person to decide on conducting a counterterrorism operation, during which he was allowed to use weapons against Bin Laden. The event’s goals were to stop a terrorist attack, stop terrorists in their tracks, and guarantee the protection of people, organizations, and institutions (Krishna, 2019). As a public authority, Barack Obama had sufficient information about a person’s involvement in an upcoming or committed terrorist act, and such an understanding was not abstract or based on guesses and assumptions.
The deprivation of the life of a terrorist suspect during a special operation was used to suppress a terrorist act. It was about suppressing a crime at the stage of its preparation. The criterion for determining readiness to commit to it when it is already necessary to destroy a terrorist is not officially regulated (Krishna, 2019). However, Bin Laden’s actions and statements gave every guarantee that he would commit new terrorist acts.
In assessing the actions of Barack Obama, an important role is played by the criminal’s identity, eliminated on his command. Al-Qaeda, the transnational Islamist terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, was founded by him, and he served as its first emir (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2019). For his supporters, the leader of the Islamic organization Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, was a freedom fighter against the influence of the United States and Israel. However, for most Western countries, he was a terrorist who killed thousands of people.
Osama Bin Laden posed a direct threat to the state system and the citizens of the United States. Under his influence, a considerable number of anti-American groups operated in the Middle East. He has repeatedly stated that he is preparing to commit new terrorist operations (Roy et al., 2022). Considering the danger of the crime committed by the detained person and the circumstances of the detention, it was impossible to apply other methods and means of detention. Therefore, the president had every reason to believe that a terrorist would create new threats to the American people and put them into action.
The Impact of Bin Laden’s Death on National Security
The crossing is meant to prevent the commission of any act in the future. Staying alive, even while in prison, Bin Laden would pose a threat. If he were taken into custody, there would be a significant possibility of the shadow leadership of a terrorist and the organization of new terrorist attacks (Roy et al., 2022). In addition, he could have been released by members of his organization, during which many people would have suffered. Given that Bin Laden had the powerful support of the entire Al-Qaeda organization, the elimination was the only solution that guaranteed complete safety from the terrorist’s influence.
In my opinion, this was a measure of adequate impact on criminals aimed at ensuring the population’s safety. The situation of countering terrorism and extremism allows drawing the following conclusions. The state power represented by Barack Obama effectively used the existing anti-terrorist security measures, making decisions in the fight against terrorism, which, in the case of Bin Laden, was rational. At the same time, adopting such strict security measures did not contribute to achieving the terrorists’ goals. On the contrary, the president’s decision served as a guarantor of the exercise of democratic rights of citizens, ensuring their protection from the threat of new terrorist acts by a dangerous criminal.
References
Krishna, S. (2019). Manhunt presidency: Obama, race, and the third world. Third World Quarterly, 5(1), 1-14. Web.
Mustafa, G., Ali, N., Siddiqui, S., & Shah, Y. F. (2020). Historical analysis of Pakistan’s relations with United States of America under Obama’s administration. Journal of Historical Studies, 6(1), 219-242. Web.
Roy, M. I., Khalid, A., Rehman, A., & Khalid, F. (2022). Operation Neptune spear and the Manhunt (Implications for Pakistan United States counter terrorism synergism 2001-2020). Journal of Political Studies, 29(2), 39-50. Web.
Soherwordi, S. H., & Khattak, S. A. (2019). 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.