U.S. Navy SEALs’ killing of Osama bin Laden sparked many responses, from surprise public jubilation displays to real doubts regarding its legitimacy. Admittedly, the contradictory verifiable versions and brief legal rationale offered by Obama administration staffers have failed to answer these unexpectedly difficult concerns adequately. Nonetheless, this essay argues that Operation Geronimo was legal under international law. This argument is anchored on the fact that bin Laden was the leader of the al Qaeda forces and that it was obvious that incapacitating him was a justifiable operational goal in the U.S. military intervention with al Qaeda.
Many critics believe that the exercise was a law enforcement operation to be assessed according to human rights law guidelines. From this viewpoint, there is almost no dispute that the mission was questionable. International law prohibits law enforcement on sovereign land without the explicit permission of that government (Bayefsky, 2021). Furthermore, law enforcement agents must try capturing their targets unharmed; the application of deadly force is permissible exclusively in self-defense. Irrespective of whether the death of defenseless civilians in bin Laden’s residence was not deliberately orchestrated, if meaningful resistance mainly emerged from a separate guesthouse, it would presumably be considered murder.
However, law enforcement has never been the primary lawful U.S. counterterrorism strategy. This is true considering that 9/11 was universally acknowledged as an armed assault, and Congress sanctioned the execution of military action against individuals involved (Hajjar, 2019). These factors position the United States’ counterterrorism on a distinctive standing, authorizing the application of force from the rules of military confrontation. The Obama administration has maintained this stance since the killing occurred (Fisher& Becker, 2021). The U.S. has the legitimate power to engage in a real military confrontation with al-Qaeda, despite the phrase “war on terror” seeming like an analogy for the operations against criminals and narcotics. Thus, the law of military confrontation must be applied to analyze Bin Laden’s death since it allows for the instantaneous execution of enemy combatants and leaders, barring physical debilitation or an acceptance of defeat. If the four essential rules of warfare are followed, it is legally immaterial whether a killing occurs distant from a “battleground “or if the target is not fighting back:
- Necessity: Any application of force should adhere to other laws governing military action and be motivated by the goal of successfully ending conflicts. For instance, killing purely to exact vengeance would go against this principle;
- Distinction: Any use of force should be aimed at a genuine military target and differentiated from ordinary individuals and property;
- Proportionality: Assaults may be undertaken on authorized military objectives whether “collateral” civilian casualties would likely ensue provided such damage is not out of proportion to the expected military benefit;
- Humanity: The use of forbidden armaments or methods expected to inflict needless suffering, whether to the primary targets, is unlawful (Cohen & Zlotogorski, 2021).
Documented facts regarding the killing of Osama bin Laden indicate that the operation fulfilled these standards. Accordingly, since he was the organization’s public figurehead, his death will inevitably significantly affect al Qaeda’s future effectiveness and eventually reduce the conflict. It is worth noting that during armed conflict, the utilization of traditional military weapons seldom poses any humanitarian concerns (Cohen & Zlotogorski, 2021). Thus, the decision to deploy a commando-style attack rather than a more lethal aerial bombardment and measures to prevent severe injury to the children and women demonstrates care for proportionality and distinction.
Following the revelation of bin Laden’s death at the hands of U.S. Navy SEALs, some critics wondered if the act was an illegal assassination or a legal assault on an enemy combatant. This concern is perhaps the most logical counterargument against the justification of bin Laden’s murder. Whereas the term “assassination” is not legally defined, it often refers to politically driven executions of public figures. In contrast, the rules of military action restrict targeting to those with army responsibilities whose killings promote war goals. A President, like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, is a legitimate target because of his position as chief of the armed forces; other political figures without such power do not fit this description. The traditional rules of warfare that prohibit “assassination” pertain to the technique of attack – deceit or betrayal — and not the target. In this perspective, an aerial attack using an army helicopter raises no legal concerns. However, an FBI agent slipping into the complex in civilian clothing would.
To conclude, occupants of the premise that housed bin Laden, such as the kids, were evacuated and individuals who resisted or shot against the forces were met with equal force, an act of self-defense. Therefore, the murder of Bin Laden and others who tried to defend him by engaging the SEAL team was legitimate under both U.S. and international law as it was conducted with proper legal authorization and per the rules of military confrontation. Nonetheless, the information presently available is inadequate to offer a thorough evaluation of all the problems associated with bin Laden’s killing. In reality, it may take years before the world learns the whole truth.
References
Bayefsky, A. (2021). Self-determination in international law, Quebec and lessons learned: Legal opinions selected and introduced. BRILL.
Cohen, A., & Zlotogorski, D. (2021). Proportionality in international humanitarian law: Consequences, precautions, and procedures (Vol. 6). Oxford University Press.
Fisher, D., & Becker, M. H. (2021). The heterogeneous repercussions of killing Osama bin Laden on global terrorism patterns. European Journal of Criminology, 18(3), 301-324.
Hajjar, L. (2019). The counterterrorism war paradigm versus international humanitarian law: The legal contradictions and global consequences of the U.S. “War on Terror”. Law & Social Inquiry, 44(4), 922-956.