The Legality of Operation Geronimo

America, like many developed nations, has faced problems relating to terror. One of the
biggest terror threats was posed by Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terror group. The terror
group under the leadership of Osama was responsible for the September 11 attacks that had a
devastating impact. Many Americans lost their lives, and many more were injured in the attacks.
The American government had to react and ensure that terror groups and leaders were stopped.
The administration of President Bush started the war on terror. President Obama continued with
this was and achieved a huge milestone when Osama Bin Laden was killed in Operation
Geronimo. The operation raised several ethical and legal questions. On one side of the divide are
people who feel that the operation conducted outside the United States was unlawful. On the
other hand, another school of thought has been advanced and has justified President Obama’s
actions under national and international law. An analysis of the issue reveals that Obama’s orders
were lawful and justified.
Operation Geronimo was not an isolated event. Instead, it was part of the war on terror
ignited by 9/11. It constituted targeted killings where a state executes a person, especially in its
custody. Some people feel that the killing was extrajudicial since Osama was not brought before
any court of law for trial (Cunningham, 2013). However, the war on terror is not meant to bring
terrorists to book but instead seeks to ensure that terror threats are eliminated before they
manifest. It was not meant to punish Osama for his past actions but rather to ensure that he was
stopped from planning and executing further attacks on the United States and its allies (Wallace,
2012). Terrorism has introduced new rules and changed how investigations are conducted and
how law enforcers deal with crime. However, the activities of stopping terror must be within the

3
confines of international law. A murky legal framework exists in this context and should be
carefully analyzed to avoid unlawful events.
In analyzing the killing of Osama Bin Laden under national law, it is paramount to frame
the legal issue and define which laws apply. Further, it is essential to analyze international laws
on the same issue. Two international law frameworks exist international humanitarian law (IHL)
and international human rights law (IHRL). Under IHL, an armed conflict must exist to operate
(Govern, 2012). If this prerequisite is met, it becomes operational. The legality of the armed
conflict is not an issue defining whether IHRL is operational (Wallace, 2012). Whether or not the
United States could enter Pakistani territory legally is thus irrelevant. Under the United Nations
Charter, there is no requirement for an armed conflict to be declared. The issue thus becomes
whether or not the United States was engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda. The use of
force has defined an international armed conflict. The International Committee of Red Cross
(ICRC) defines an armed conflict as differences between states that necessitate the use of force
(Govern, 2012). The length of the conflict is not a factor of consideration. The Al Qaeda group
had attacked the United States and its allies for a long time. This meant that an armed conflict
existed, necessitating targeted killings of the terror group’s leaders. The international armed
conflict makes the killing of Osama justified under international humanitarian law.
Having established the existence of an armed conflict between the United States and Al
Qaeda, one can look at whether or not Osama was a combatant. Under IHL, the military can
eliminate combatants (Wallace, 2012). To this end, if Osama was a combatant, the United States
was justified unless he surrendered. At the same time, Osama was a civilian, the Al Qaeda terror
group comprised civilians who planned and executed various attacks. While, in theory, civilians
are protected, terror introduces new dynamics. A combatant is a member of an armed force or an

4
armed group. Al Qaeda is an armed group, and even though the group does not follow the
traditional laws of war, Osama and his followers had made the United States a target. He had
failed to surrender, making him a legitimate target (Wallace, 2012). He can be thought to be the
group’s commander and was actively involved in the planning and executing of terror activities.
To this end, he had to be targeted under international law and stopped to stop needless deaths.
Overall, Osama was a combatant under IHL, and his terror group had been involved in an
armed conflict with the United States. President Obama needed to act and stop any further terror
activities. The protection of the lives of Americans is a priority. The United States was within the
legal confines dictated by international law in attacking Osama and Pakistan. President Obama
continued with this was and achieved a huge milestone when Osama Bin Laden was killed in
Operation Geronimo. The operation raised several ethical and legal questions. On one side of the
divide are people who feel that the operation conducted outside the United States was unlawful.
On the other hand, another school of thought has been advanced and has justified President
Obama’s actions under national and international law. An analysis of the issue reveals that
Obama’s orders were lawful and justified.

5

References

Cunningham, S. (2013). Zero Dark Thirty: A Critical Evaluation of the Legality of the Killing of
Osama bin Laden under International Humanitarian Law. Sarah Cunningham,’ Zero Dark
Thirty: A Critical Evaluation of the Legality of the Killing of Osama bin Laden under
International Humanitarian Law'(2013), 26(2).
Govern, K. (2012). Operation Neptune Spear: Was Killing Bin Laden a Legitimate Military
Objective?. Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, 347-373.
Wallace, D. (2012). Operation Neptune’s Spear: The Lawful Killing of Osama Bin Laden. Israel
Law Review, 45(2), 367-377. doi:10.1017/S0021223712000118