Introduction
Operation Geronimo appeared to be the most controversial military operation executed by the U.S. government. Its goal was to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda. This organized terrorist group was responsible for the September 11 attacks in the U.S., as well as various armed attacks in Afghanistan.
The administration of President Obama authorized Operation Neptune Spear by the US SEAL team in Pakistan. Bin Laden, the main target of the operation, was given the code name Geronimo. As a result of the operation, the leader of Al-Qaeda was killed, which led to extensive debate. Although the operation is legally and morally justified as self-defense against terrorist attacks, it cannot be considered ethical.
Was It Legal?
Various authors have different opinions on the legitimacy of killing Osama bin Laden. However, most agree that Operation Geronimo is lawful under both U.S. and international law. Wallace (2012) argues that the killing of bin Laden was “lawful under international humanitarian law” (p. 377). The author elaborates on the topic by explaining that the U.S. and Al-Qaeda were in a state of non-international armed conflict.
Additionally, Al-Qaeda can be defined as an organized armed group under international humanitarian law. Bin Laden was the highest-level strategic commander of the group, which made him involved in planning armed attacks against both military and civilian targets. The killing of bin Laden can be considered a right of self-defense executed by the U.S. government. Paust (2011) argues that “the killing of bin Laden was permissible under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter” (p. 580). The leader of Al-Qaeda was actively engaged in attacks on the U.S. and other nations’ officials in Afghanistan, which justifies the operation.
In addition to the international law legitimacy, the operation can also be proved legal under U.S. law. Paust (2011) points out some criticisms of the operation as contrary to the Constitution of the U.S. However, international law, including the UN Charter, is considered constitutional. Therefore, the U.S. President has the authority to execute the required competencies against armed attacks, as well as targeting individuals during war. Congress authorized Obama to use “appropriate force under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force” (Paust, 2011, p. 582). Therefore, the killing of bin Laden can be considered an appropriate force as it targets a leader of organized armed groups, which threatens the security of U.S. citizens.
Some authors oppose the idea that the operation can be justified as an appropriate force and considered self-defense. Chiesa and Greenawalt (2012) claim that the U.S. government was required to have evidence of future armed attacks planned by bin Laden to kill him as a preventative measure. Additionally, bin Laden did not show any threat of imminent harm that could be caused to the U.S. officers or civilians, which makes the appropriate use of force inapplicable to the case (Chiesa & Greenawalt, 2012).
As he was not directly engaged in hostility, his killing was not justified and lawful (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). Ambos and Alkatout (2012) also underline that international humanitarian law could be violated as the U.S. did not respect the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan. Overall, the authors argue that bin Laden should have been taken alive for further trial under U.S. criminal law.
Was It Ethical?
The ethical underpinnings of the case are subject to debate as well. Even though there are currently specific ethical guidelines that can be applied to various cases, they are not helpful in relation to target killings (Koven & Perez, 2021). Koven and Perez (2011) underline that executive government branches use their own criteria to determine whether the operation is ethical, which often do not coincide with universal standards of ethics. Miller (2011) supports the point by arguing that targeted killing, which applies to the operation, is a special type of military activity for eliminating terrorists. In relation to this distinction, the killing of bin Laden can be considered ethical as having the aim of counter-terrorism activities.
However, ethics is not concerned with evaluating the results of the actions within the broader picture. It defines wrong and right behavior based on the universal concepts of good and evil (Koven & Perez, 2021). From an ethical standpoint, the operation is unethical as it involves killing an individual, which cannot be justified. Additionally, Miller (2011) proposes a valid point that the operation could serve as an impetus for terrorist activities. They could consider it a call for action and revenge, leading to more dramatic consequences. Therefore, the operation was unethical and cannot be justified from an ethical perspective.
Was It Moral?
The moral side of the operation is even more controversial than the debate around its legitimacy. Whether the killing of bin Laden was moral or not requires the consideration of the concept of justice, which cannot be universally defined. Strawser (2014) proposes that the operation was morally permissible as the killing was the act of causing harm for the defense on behalf of innocent people. Therefore, the killing of bin Laden was a possible threat to the security of U.S. citizens and the rest of the world. The decision to eliminate the target, the leader of the organized armed group, can be considered moral due to the potential benefits for the lives of thousands of people.
Military Rules of Engagement required the SEAL team to execute the operation to take bin Laden alive. The main argument in defense of the immoral nature of the operation is that the leader of Al-Qaeda was not armed and did not pose any threat to officers (Khatchadourian, 2011). However, bin Laden could also be treated as a combat-based target, which justifies his killing as a person with the intent of harm. Even if he was not armed and showing any sign of resistance, he was the leader of Al-Qaeda.
The organization has planned and executed numerous armed attacks in Afghanistan and was threatening the security of U.S. citizens. Therefore, any officer engaged in the operation and saw bin Laden had a right to kill him as a possible threat based on his reputation and his participation in Al-Qaeda. Therefore, the operation is morally justified as a preventative measure, causing lesser harm to one individual for the sake of the security of thousands of people.
Conclusion
To conclude, Operation Geronimo is lawful under international humanitarian law and the U.S. Constitution. It is also morally justified as an act of self-defense of the innocents at the expense of a terrorist individual. However, it cannot be considered ethical as it involves killing, which cannot be right under any circumstances. The killing of bin Laden is subject to ongoing debate and unresolved controversy, which raises important questions about the possible justification for assassination and target killing.
References
Ambos, K., & Alkatout, J. (2012). Has ‘justice been done’? The legality of bin Laden’s killing under international law. Israel Law Review, 45(2), 341 – 366. Web.
Chiesa, L. E., & Greenawalt, A. (2012). Beyond war: Bin Laden, Escobar, and the justification of targeted killing. Washington and Lee Law Review, 1371-1470.
Khatchadourian, R. (2011). Bin Laden: The rules of engagement. The New Yorker. Web.
Koven, S. G., & Perez, A. F. (2021). Ethics of targeted killings and assassinations. Public Integrity. Web.
Miller, S. (2011). The ethics of assassination and targeted killing. Annual Review of Law and Ethics, 19, 309-322. Web.
Paust, J. J. (2011). Permissible self-defense targeting and the death of bin Laden. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, 39(4), 569-583.
Strawser, B. J. (2014). Killing bin Laden: A moral analysis. Palgrave-Macmillan.
Wallace, D. A. (2012). Operation Neptune’s Spear: The lawful killing of Osama bin Laden. Israel Law Review, 45(2), 367-377. Web.