President Obamas Legal Authority to Order Operation Geronimo

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Because of his involvement in planning the 9/11 attacks, which resulted in the terrible deaths of many people, Bin Laden is notorious. In September 2010, the CIA took the lead after years of Military and intelligence personnel searching the world for bin Ladens hiding place, according to Military (2022, para. 6). The CIA then used operatives, surveillance, and other information-gathering techniques to conclude that bin Laden was staying in the facility in Abbottabad, Pakistan. President Obama has the authority to direct Operation Geronimo as the legitimate representative of the American government and people. The Presidents power to take military action against the 9/11 hijackers was recognized under American law.

Discussion

Before the attack, only the most robust inference was that bin Laden was present (Military, 2022). Therefore, on May 2, 2011, U.S. Special Forces& killed the most wanted terrorist in the world. The entire procedure took about 40 minutes to complete (Marks, 2021, para. 1). The operation put an end to the drawn-out search for the September 11 attacks mastermind. The killing of bin Laden and others who battled the Special Forces to defend him was legal under U.S. and international law since the Presidents decision was legitimate and complied with the laws of military combat was in place.

Operation Geronimo was legal in the U.S. since the countrys legal system had been modified to justify the Presidents decision to pursue specific counterterrorism measures. In particular, the House and Senate passed resolutions allowing the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those & persons & [who] planned& [or] committed& the terrorist attacks & in the wake of the September 11, 2001 catastrophe. n.d., paragraph 2; Coughlan. Nevertheless, the reaction to bin Ladens death was mixed on the world stage.

For instance, international humanitarian law forbids killing an adversary, according to Geert-Jan Knoops, a Dutch professor of international agreements. The U.S. regards itself as being in a state of war against terror and& having the right to eliminate its enemies, he claimed (Coughlan, n.d., para. 3). However, no court&will infuriate the Americans for this even though the laws of war do not permit this (Coughlan, n.d., para. 3). The killing of bin Laden, however, served as both retribution and justice for many families of the 9/11 victims. As a result, the death of Osama bin Laden was a massive victory for the American people and the American government.

Regarding the issue of the operations authorization, it is crucial to take into account international law, and it also turns out that the operation is legal. Law enforcement is not the only viable U.S. counterterrorism option, given that 9/11 was widely acknowledged to be a military attack and that Congress later authorized the use of military force against those responsible. These facts put U.S. covert operations in a unique situation and allow the use of authority drawn from international law (Glazier, 2018). Therefore, Bin Ladens killing should be evaluated following the laws of armed warfare, which permit the elimination of enemy fighters and commanders immediately unless they are rendered incapable of fighting or voluntarily offers submission.

Legally, it is irrelevant if a killing takes place far from a field of war or whether the enemy is not actively assaulting as long as the four fundamental criteria of fighting are followed. Specifically, any force that is utilized must be focused on a legitimate military objective and not on civilians. If inevitable inadvertent civilian damage occurs, the harm should not outweigh the anticipated military benefit. Finally, prohibited weapons must not be used in assaults.

In actuality, the operations participants abided by international law by not violating any armed conflict-related legal principles. The Special Forces were instructed to employ the legal amount of force while adhering to military necessity, appropriateness, and distinction as they approached the site. Fighting Bin Laden had a military objective in support of the international communitys efforts to combat global extremism since he had been designated as a terrorist (Glazier, 2018). Reports indicate that it met these criteria.

Bin Ladens death should end the conflict since, as the organizations acknowledged public leader, he had a detrimental effect on the groups future effectiveness. Consideration for differentiation and fairness may be shown in the decision to use special forces attacks rather than more brutal bombing operations and in the efforts to prevent killing current women and children (Glazier, 2018). Because this idea is used in military regulations, using conventional weaponry for combat creates no issues for humanity (Glazier, 2018). Power was used quite selectively in bin Ladens residence, with two well-aimed rounds striking the military target in the chest and head.

Conclusion

To conclude, as a lawful representative of the American government and people, President Obama has the right to command Operation Geronimo. The law in the U.S. acknowledged the Presidents authority to order military action against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. Additionally, the operation was declared an armed war in the interests of both U.S. and foreign military forces. Last but not least, the strike was perfectly legal because it did not violate any fighting standards.