Category: American politics

Introduction

In August 1998, U.S. President Bill Clinton declared Osama bin Laden public enemy number one. Then, the CIA began a large-scale hunt for the person, until then considered to be only a significant sponsor of extremists. It was possible to liquidate bin Laden almost in 13 years due to operations in Pakistan (Conley, 2017). During those years, the intelligence agencies were repeatedly close to catching or destroying the head of al-Qaeda, but each time they failed. According to official White House statements, U.S. intelligence agencies managed to find bin Ladens refuge by monitoring those few contact couriers (Conley, 2017). Accordingly, the world community had a chance to dispose of a man who stimulates and finances terrorism. Thus, it is imperative to establish whether President Obama had the authority to conduct Operation Geronimo.

The Background Information

Barack Obama has decided definitively to emancipate the world from the terrorist threat. The operation to eliminate Osama bin Laden was scheduled for Sunday, May 1 (Conley, 2017). The operation involved 12 members of an elite U.S. Navy unit known as Navy SEALs (Conley, 2017). They were not convinced that bin Laden will be in the residence when they assaulted it. There was still a risk that the al-Qaeda leader would be warned about the operation and again elude the intelligence services. However, once inside the mansion, the fighters sent their command a scrambled Geronimo signal, indicating that the target was inside the building. President Barack Obama observed the operation almost during live TV coverage (Conley, 2017). The process destroyed a man who was later identified as bin Laden, based on external features and then on computer analysis of the photograph.

Legitimacy of the Operation

It is essential to mention that a month before Obama issued the Geronimo order, lawyers were developing the legal justification for it. The legal backing for the deal made it possible to send troops to Pakistan without state consent (Conley, 2017). There is a debate about this because, in the absence of war, it is not permissible for any state to introduce troops into the territory of another country. Thus, in fact, international law prohibits the violation of the territorial value of Pakistan and military invasion. Under international law, it was appropriate to submit a request to the Pakistani government asking for the arrest of bin Laden (Conley, 2017). However, there was a serious threat that Pakistani authorities would not comply with the U.S. plea and assist Bin Ladens escape. Therefore, the lawyers justified the unilateral military invasion with a sovereignty exception from the usual unwilling or unable (Conley, 2017). Thus, the operation was legally conducted on the territory of another state because Pakistan could not destroy the threat on its own.

Another reason that opponents of Obamas decision cite is the right to surrender. Accordingly, bin Laden had the right to surrender voluntarily; therefore, the mission aimed at killing bin Laden excluded this power. Nevertheless, the military personnel involved in the operation claimed that the perpetrator had not expressed a desire to surrender. At the same time, there was a threat that someone from his entourage would start shooting (Conley, 2017). Hence, they were instructed to minimize the risks to themselves, even though they had a plan of action describing the option of capturing the living perpetrators. It is crucial to remark that the International Committee of the Red Cross indicates that it is forbidden to attack and kill the wounded (Conley, 2017). Accordingly, opponents of Obamas decision specified that bin Laden only needed to be injured. Although details matter for the legal justification, for example, it was assumed that the perpetrator would be equipped with a suicide vest or ready access to other rigged explosives (Conley, 2017). That way, bin Laden could have caused significant damage to the operations people and would have had a chance to escape again.

Another argument justifying the legality of the deal approved by Obama is that a reward was offered for information on the whereabouts of the criminal. Thus, it is fully in accordance with international law and national law because they forbid a reward for the head of the criminal, not for the details (Conley, 2017). At the same time, there was a court decision regarding the legal advice that opponents of the murder demanded to be published. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the lawyers reasoning and rationale must be kept confidential so that they are not afraid to disclose their opinions in emergencies (Conley, 2017). Moreover, the judges noted that transparency as one of the principles of a democratic society is not violated, and non-disclosure is required to preserve state secrets. Therefore, the decision to conduct the operation can be considered legally justified at the preparation stage, allowing to assert the operations legality.

Conclusion

Hence, despite the existence of opinions that Obama did not have the legal authority to conduct the Geronimo operation, it can be argued that the rules of law were complied with. This is explained by the meaningful legal support for the process and the justification and provision of a plan of action to the perpetrators. In view of the fact that bin Laden was harming the world by his terrorist actions, the decision to introduce the military into Pakistans theory is fully justified. However, bin Laden did not express a desire to surrender, and due to the danger of the situation, for the sake of minimizing the risks to the lives of the military, they were instructed to eliminate him. Thus, the conduct of this operation was justified under international law and contributed to the destruction of world terrorism.

Reference

Conley, R. S. (2017). Presidential Leadership and National Security. Taylor & Francis.

Osama bin Laden, the founder and leader of the Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda, had been the target of the United States for the longest time. According to Mazhar and Goraya (2020), then-president Bill Clinton made the official announcement regarding bin Ladens arrest, dead or alive, as far back as in 1992. Almost twenty years later, it was practically executed by another president, Barack Obama. On May 2, 2011, the world observed the death of the al-Qaeda mastermind, who after 9/11 became one of the worlds most wanted men. The raid in which American Navy SEALs took over his Abottabad, Pakistan compound to capture bin Laden was titled Mission Geronimo. The entire mission was reportedly watched live by Obama and his staff, who were prominent advocates for justice and human rights. The question of whether then-president had the legal authority to execute the operation is discussed by many to this day. This paper states that Obama was rightfully authorized to the missions execution due to it being justified legally and due to the threat that bin Laden possessed to the United States and the world.

First of all, some might wonder if the Law of Armed Conflict, or LOAC, could be applied to this case. As per Louisiana State University (2019), LOAC is restricted to conflicts that have adequate intensity and scope to authorize treatment under the legal regime of war, and not every terrorist can be targeted under it. There once even was some debate over whether LOAC could pertain terrorists as non-state actors; however, 9/11 made it no longer a matter of contention. In any event, Soherwordi and Khattak (2020) state that the United States has long held the view that it and al-Qaeda are in an armed conflict, and it has been confirmed by the administration. Thus, the most appropriate reading of the law is: non-state terrorists that are representatives of organized armed groups constantly involved in combat operations can be legitimately targeted much like representatives of traditional armed forces. There were little to no doubts about bin Ladens central role in al-Qaedas operations, and documents obtained during the raid only corroborated it (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). In accordance with it, bin Laden could have legitimately been attacked almost at any time and anywhere.

Another issue some see with the killing is that it might be regarded an assassination. According to Dunlap (2019), a Department of Defense appointee named W. Hays Parks wrote a memorandum in 1989 that addressed the legal meaning of the term. It stated that [p]eacetime assassination& would seem to encompass the murder of a private individual or public figure for political purposes (Dunlap, 2019). However, Parks made a distinction between such killings and killings of combatants in wartime. According to him, [c]ombatants are legitimate targets, regardless of their duties or activities at the time of the attack. Such attacks do not constitute assassination unless carried out in a treacherous manner (Dunlap, 2019). While it is not exactly clear what treacherous might mean, among the numerous examples of admissible military killings Parks cited a World War II operation that led to the death of Isoroku Yamamoto. He was a Japanese admiral who orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbor and can be compared to Osama bin Laden in that regard. Therefore, a case can be made that bin Ladens death was not the result of an assassination.

Moreover, there were discussions immediately after the raid that it was executed in Pakistan without the authorization or even prior notification of the countrys government. In this setting, America relied on a legal concept pertinent to states unwilling or unable to effectually take measures against entities within their borders that pose a threat to Americans (Martin, 2019). In some ways, Pakistan had the theoretical ability to have acted against bin Laden; however, he lived there untroubled for many years. It is thus to be concluded that the country was unable to take effectuate measures against bin Laden. In such a situation, it was the right that the United States reserved, to use force against the threat.

Finally, there were questions regarding the need to kill bin Laden, as he, upon being shot, was hors de combat, that is, injured and, therefore, not able to act. However, someone being injured does not necessarily mean they are hors de combat. In fact, according to Dunlap (2019), the chronicles of military history are full of cases in which badly wounded were still able to fight. When it comes to bin Laden, Americans had anticipated him to have free access to various explosives. Therefore, the unwillingness of the raiders to take risks when capturing one of the worlds most wanted was justified.

In conclusion, Mission Geronimo, that is, the killing of Osama bin Laden, was rightfully legally authorized by the President of the United States. First of all, the Law of Armed Conflict was applicable to the operation. Moreover, the inability of Pakistan to take action against bin Laden gave USA the right to act. In addition to that, bin Laden was a legitimate target as a combatant in wartime and Americans could not have risked not killing him even when he was injured. Therefore, the United States did what it should have done and the mission was lawful and justified.

References

Dunlap, C. (2019). Yes, the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden was lawful. Duke University.

Louisiana State University. (2019). Basics of Law of Armed Conflict.

Martin, C. (2019). Challenging and refining the unwilling or unable doctrine. Vanderbult Journal of Transnational Law, 52(2), 1-77.

Mazhar, M. S., & Goraya, N. S. (2020). An analytical study of Pak-US relations: Post Osama (2011-2012). South Asian Studies, 27(1), 77-87. Web.

Soherwordi, S. H. S., & Khattak, S. A. (2020). 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.

Introduction

Currently, the aspects of national security can be considered crucially essential for the government of the United States of America since the wellness and protection of citizens, as well as social safety are guaranteed. In this situation, public authorities should constantly assess their decisions and recognize their legal power to provide specific national security solutions. During Operation Geronimo, President Obama had the legal authority to approve the mission since he is the official accountable for national security principles, whereas his actions are monitored by other agencies.

Operation Geronimo

To assess whether President Obama had the legal power to confirm the commencement of the operation, it is initially obligatory to analyze the mission and its features. The most sought human globally, Osama Bin Laden, was killed in Pakistan in May 2011 (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). Osama reportedly resided in Abbottabad for the previous several years, adjacent to a Pakistani military college (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). He was assassinated and his body was captured by the US Navy Seal unit during Operation Geronimo, a military mission (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). The operation, which was performed secretly by the Pakistani public authorities, has pushed ties between the two nations to an unprecedented bottom (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). There have additionally been suggestions that American forces may be sent to Pakistan if the countrys nuclear facilities are threatened by militants seeking revenge for the death of Osama bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden

Referring to the necessity of dealing with the case of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, it is feasible to emphasize the threat that bin Laden was imposing on the American national security system. The deadliest terrorist strike against the United States of America occurred on September 11, 2001, and Osama bin Laden was the planner behind the strikes that lead to the death of approximately 3,000 Americans (U.S. Government Printing Office, 2022). The 1998 explosions in the American diplomatic missions in Kenya and Tanzania were exclusively one of several fatal terrorist acts against the United States and its partners that Osama bin Laden either organized or facilitated (U.S. Government Printing Office, 2022). The key battleground in the ongoing fight against terrorism and radicalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, was when President Barack Obama pledged more personnel and funds in 2009 (U.S. Government Printing Office, 2022). Hence, regarding national security considerations, the personality of bin Laden was evaluated as extremely dangerous for social stability in the world and in the U.S.

Authority of President Obama

Concerning the legal power that President Obama had to authorize Operation Geronimo, it can be stated that he, as the President of the United States, was operating in the interest of national security. The President of the United States of America acts as the militarys supreme commander and is in charge of maintaining public safety and national security (Scott, 2018). The decisions made by the President of the United States are supported by evidence, legal frameworks, and the observations of American legislative and judicial governmental bodies. In case the decision is accepted, the American government recognizes its actions and provides measures following the policies and President Obama had legal authority to approve the operation.

Conclusion

To summarize, during Operation Geronimo, a military mission, a US Navy Seal group eliminated Osama bin Laden and confirmed his death. In terms of the legal authority President Obama possessed to approve Operation Geronimo, it may be said that, in his capacity as President of the United States, he acted in the countrys interest. On the occasion that the decision is approved, the American government acknowledges the operations acts and initiates the necessary steps following the regulations, and President Obama had the legal right to accomplish this.

References

Scott, C. (2018). Foucault, Carter, and Trump? Neoliberalism and US foreign policy. Palgrave Macmillan.

Soherwordi, S. H. S., & Khattak, S. A. (2020). Operation Geronimo: Assassination of Osama bin Laden and its implications on the US-Pakistan relations, War on Terror, Pakistan and Al-Qaeda. South Asian Studies, 26(2).

U.S. Government Printing Office. (2022). Official record of the Osama bin Laden operation. Intelligence Authorization Act.

Introduction

Even though the beginning of Operation Geronimo is connected with particular controversy, it is the legally justified decision of the American President. In 2011, Barack Obama, the head of the state at that moment, ordered to start Operation Geronimo to execute Osama bin Laden, the current leader of the terrorist group Al Qaeda (Paaagi, 2020). He was responsible for the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, which was the reason for the active response of the United States (Paaagi, 2020). Therefore, Operation Geronimo was the adequate response of the United States to the danger Al Qaeda posed to its security, which made the decision of Barack Obama legal. The primary concern in the critique of the legal status of Operation Geronimo is connected with the execution of an unarmed person, which is prohibited by the laws of the United States. According to the report, Osama bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed, which makes the operation controversial from an ethical point of view (Sinai, 2021). In all cases, Barack Obama had the legal right to execute Operation Geronimo because he protected the domestic security of the United States.

Discussion

The first reason that decides Barack Obama started Operation Geronimo was the threat to American national security from Al Qaeda in general and its leader Asama bin Laden in particular. Politicians and researchers agree that bin Laden was responsible for the terrorist attack on 9/11, which was the profound reason for the radical actions of the American government (Paaagi, 2020). He was the person who inspired Islamic terrorists and supported their hatred of the American nation (Hutchins, 2017). As a result, the actions of the American government and the decision of President Obama allowed the country to prevent other cases of mass assassination during potential terrorist attacks (Sinai, 2021). It states that the order of Barack Obama to execute Operation Geronimo corresponded to the political and military context, which makes it legally justified.

From the formal point of view, the execution of Operation Geronimo was legal and corresponded to the principles of the American military. Therefore, there are no legal controversies from this perspective that can be applied to the decision of President Obama. The order that the group of officers received was to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, regarded as the terrorist number one in the world. Even though there is a note in the military laws that it is not legal to kill unarmed individuals who want to surrender, there are no proofs that Osama bin Laden truly wanted to do it (Hutchins, 2017). There were other armed men in the house where the leader of Al Qaeda resided at that moment, and all of them tried to fight the group of American soldiers (Paaagi, 2020). This information shows that the situation of capturing Osama bin Laden was critical, and the American soldiers had to make quick decisions on the spot. All men that lived with Osama bin Laden in the house tried to protect him, and there was no chance that the leader of the terrorist organization would surrender to the United States.

The official report about Operation Geronimo shows that there were many weapons in the same room as Osama bin Laden. As a result, he had the opportunity to seize them and use them against the American soldiers who were engaged in this operation. For example, he had the AKS-74U carbon and the Makarov pistol that he could easily reach if one of the American officers would not kill him at the stop s (Paaagi, 2020). This data shows that Osama bin Laden was not an unarmed civil person who wanted to surrender. It is the adequate reason for the radical actions of the American soldiers whose lives and the goal of the military operation were put at risk. It allows us to assume that the order Barack Obama gave to execute Osama bin Laden during the mission was the legally foregrounded solution in this case.

The third reason President Obamas decision is legally adequate is the choice of the optimal place and time for executing Operation Geronimo. The American specialists, including the military officers and the CIA, found the moment when the leader of Al Qaeda was in a comparatively unprotected house that was alienated from the cities. According to the investigation, bin Laden used to reside in the underground bunker most time, and the American officials had to throw 910 kg bombs to destroy this place. No need to say that the explosion would destroy the houses nearby and many civilians would be killed or injured, which was unacceptable (Paaagi, 2020). This data shows that the decision of Barack Obama to start Operation Geronimo at the moment was humanistic and justified both from legal and ethical points of view.

In addition, the American officers responsible for executing the plan during Operation Geronimo were highly professional, which ensured a positive outcome. All of them had the necessary experience in the region, which meant that they knew the language and the way of life in the area. They could reach the place where Osama bin Laden lived without attracting unnecessary attention from the local population, which allowed them to minimize all possible losses among civilians. They were the skilled group from the American Red Squadron who had previously served in Pakistan and Afghanistan (Paaagi, 2020). These details illustrate the idea that the American government in general and Barack Obama, in particular, were cautious in executing the plan, which makes Operation Geronimo legally justified. The American officials made everything possible to execute the plan of killing the leader of the terrorist organization without harming other people.

Conclusion

To conclude, the decision of President Obama concerning the execution of Operation Geronimo was legally justified. The facts show that Osama bin Laden would not surrender peacefully to the American soldiers, which endangered the mission results. Therefore, they had the right to kill the leader of the terrorist organization without giving him the chance to seize the weapons that were available in the same room. In addition, the plan details aimed at minimizing potential civilian victims. The primary issue that decides Barack Obama legally justified is the pursuit of the national interests and the preservation of American national security endangered by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Therefore, all actions during the execution of Operation Geronimo were guided by the principles of preserving the national security of the United States and corresponded to the laws of the United States. It makes the decision of President Obama and the way the plan was implemented in practice adequate and consistent with all legal aspects.

References

Hutchins, R. (2017). Islam and suicide terrorism: Separating fact from fiction. Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, 9(11), 711. Web.

Paaagi, A. (2020). Failed states and terrorism: Justifiability of transnational interventions from a counterterrorism perspective. Perspectives on Terrorism, 14(3), 1928. Web.

Sinai, J. (2021). Review of the rise and fall of Osama bin Laden. Perspectives on Terrorism, 15(5), 9393. Web.

International terrorism consists of violent or harmful activities to human life that violate the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or would constitute a criminal offense if conducted within the authority of the United States or any state. These actions are meant to frighten or coerce a civilian population, influence government policy, or change government behavior. These crimes cross national borders in terms of the means by which they are carried out, the people they appear to be meant to terrify, and the location in which offenders operate. As recent events have demonstrated, threat of international terrorism have had a great impact on the American political landscape. The devastating terror attacks on 9/11 impacted practically every facet of American society two decades ago, the culture transformed, filled with more dread, the United States waged costly and lethal conflicts (Malley & Finer, 2018). Congress approved major legislation. Following the occurrences of terrorisms, the US government began profiling and monitoring its own population, and ushering in a new era of mass surveillance to enhance the security of civilians and the countrys boarder. Therefore, this paper explains how threats from international terrorism has transformed the American political landscape by expansion of presidential authority, review of the American immigration system, authorization for military force and growth of surveillance.

One of the most significant and long-lasting changes brought about by foreign terrorist threats is the tremendous expansion of presidential authority, which has altered vast swaths of Americas legal and political environment. Within months following the 9/11 events, then-President George W. Bushs government approved surveillance on Americans (Malley & Finer, 2018). In the years afterwards, there have been efforts to reverse some of these policies, but many post-9/11 trends have remained in place, affecting Americas use of force overseas, immigration and surveillance laws, and the delicate balance of separation of powers (Malley & Finer, 2018). These reforms have had a lasting impact on the interactions of Congress, the court, and the President, as well as the connection that ordinary Americans have with their own government. One of the defining problems of the post-9/11 legal environment has been how to balance national security with expanding presidential powerwhile also regaining trust in the American government itself.

Secondly, risks from international terrorism prompted a review of the American immigration system. After 9/11, when judges and policymakers began to see immigration as a national security problem, Americas immigration system was radically altered (Helbling & Meierrieks, 2022). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established by Congress in 2002, merging 22 federal departments in the greatest restructuring of the federal government since World War II (Helbling & Meierrieks, 2022). Many DHS divisions, notably Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), have been granted considerable authority and extensive resources to enforce immigration laws both at the border and throughout the country. In 2002, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program (Helbling & Meierrieks, 2022). The program mandated men of a certain age who were non-citizens from 25 countries24 of which had a Muslim majorityto report to immigration offices to be interviewed, fingerprinted, and photographed. The program was later considered non-objective and eventually canceled in 2011.

More permanent has been the DHS Secure Communities program, inaugurated under President Bush in 2008, which established a database in which federal, state, and local police forces exchanged information, including fingerprint matching. If an illegal immigrant is apprehended for a traffic offense, ICE is now notified (Helbling & Meierrieks, 2022). The database enabled unprecedented levels of deportation in the United States, sparking outrage and the creation of sanctuary cities during Donald Trumps administration, which harbor undocumented immigrants.

Thirdly, threats of international terrorism have led to the authorization for use of military force. The approval of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on September 18, 2001a joint resolution authorizing the United States military to pursue the perpetrators of 9/11was perhaps the most visible example of Congress expanding presidential authority (Malley & Finer, 2018). The AUMFs relevance has only risen since its passage. Over the last two decades, several presidents have construed the AUMF to broaden their power beyond just fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, to include operations in Iraq, strikes on ISIS, and various military deployments in other countries such as Yemen, Somalia, and Libya (Malley & Finer, 2018). Just recently, the Biden Administration carried out an airstrike in Somalia under the 2001 AUMF (Helbling & Meierrieks, 2022). The whole list of groups covered by the AUMF is still classified, so Americans have no idea how many actions it authorizes.

Lastly, threats of international terrorism have led to the growth of surveillance. As the War on Terror began, the US governments monitoring of its own population increased. Some initiatives, such as the Presidents Surveillance Program (PSP), a series of secret intelligence actions authorized by Bush in 2001, were begun in secret by the Bush Administration (Rives-East, 2019). PSP comprised warrantless monitoring of communications of persons suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda, as well as warrantless collection and mining of phone and internet metadata from Americans. The program, codenamed STELLARWIND, was gradually revealed over the next decade, first in a New York Times piece in 2005 (Rives-East, 2019). The approach was aimed at allowing the government to have access to possible sources of information related to national security.

Furthermore, it was showcased comprehensively in 2013, when the Washington Post and the Guardian released an internal report obtained by Edward Snowden that outlined the activities (Rives-East, 2019). Congress also took many efforts to extend surveillance, including the passage of the Patriot Act following the 911 Attack, which significantly expanded the instruments used by law enforcement to investigate crimes. Among the Acts many contentious sections was Section 215, which permitted the gathering of business data or any other tangible item deemed relevant to an international terrorism, counterespionage, or foreign intelligence inquiry (Rives-East, 2019). In 2015, Congress approved the USA Freedom Act, which reduced but essentially preserved Section 215 of the Patriot Act (Rives-East, 2019). Section 215 expired in 2020, although other provisions of the Patriot Act, such as the sneak and peek clause, are still in effect.

In conclusion, international terrorism has greatly transformed the political landscape of the United States ranging from expansion of presidential authority, increased surveillance, use of military force to changes of American Immigration system. Threats of international terrorism led to the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, which merged 22 federal departments in the greatest restructuring of the federal government since World War II. The Authorization of Military Use after the 911 Attack which has been applied in the past two decades by the different American presidents to fight terror groups such as Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabab, Taliban in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other terror groups in Yemen, Libya and Somalia. The increased surveillance as a result of curbing the terrorism threats lead to the establishment of the Patriot Act which expired in 2020, however, some sections of it still exists.

References

Helbling, M., & Meierrieks, D. (2022). Terrorism and migration: An overview. British Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 977-996. Web.

Malley, R., & Finer, J. (2018). The long shadow of 9/11: How counterterrorism warps US foreign policy. Foreign Affairs, 97, 58. Web.

Rives-East, D. (2019). Surveillance and terror in post-9/11 British and American television. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

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.

References

Coughlan, G. (n.d.). Bin Laden  a license to kill? Global Policy Forum. Web.

Glazier, D. (2018). Assessing the legality of Osama bin Ladens killing. Pacific Standard. Web.

Marks, J. (2021). How SEAL Team Six took out Osama bin Laden. HISTORY. Web.

Military. (2022). The operation that took out Osama Bin Laden. Web.

Introduction

The former U.S. commander in chief President Obama, on April 29, 2011, authorized Operation Geronimo which culminated in the killing of Osama Bin Laden. According to reports, the executive order was preceded by in-depth consultations with the National Security Council (NSC), specifically on whether Osama was within the identified hideout. Similarly, there were discussions regarding how to undertake the operation  either to capture or kill. In the end, President Obama gave the order that led to the killing of Osama in an exercise dubbed Operation Geronimo. It is important to note that the news of Osamas death brought a sense of relief to millions of Americans, especially those who were previously affected by the 9/11 attack instigated by AI Qaeda. However, several questions emerged regarding the legality of Operation Geronimo. This paper holds that President Obama had the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and to execute the plan because he was the commander in chief of the military and abided by the U.S. Laws of War and International Law, Rules of War, and the Geneva Convention.

Discussion

Firstly, the decision to authorize Operation Geronimo was justified by the U.S. Laws of War and International Law. Based on S.J. Resolution 23 of September 2001, the president has the full authority to use all necessary and appropriate forces against all the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks (Pearcy, 2018, P. 255). This made the AI Qaeda leaders the prime suspects and main targets. In essence, the military had the authority to use necessary forces to either capture or kill Osama bin Laden without violating any set Laws of War. However, when viewed through the lens of International Law, the U.S. forces did not have the authority to enter Pakistan legally. Similarly, it was largely impossible for the U.S. government to cooperate with Pakistan because it was believed that some officials within the Pakistani government were protecting bin Laden (Schaller, 2015). Therefore, it was concluded that the country was harboring the most notorious terrorist  the Obama legal team observed that Pakistan could not eliminate the threat on its own. While some countries criticized the U.S.s military actions thereafter, the majority of the international community accepted the decision.

Secondly, the Rules of War demonstrate clearly that the President had the authority to order the operation. These rules include military necessity, proportionality, and distinction/ discrimination. On military necessity, the forces may engage in conduct even when the action will result in destruction and harm (Rosert and Sauer, 2019, p. 371). Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks which made him a legitimate target. Similarly, the rule of proportionality, also referred to as international humanitarian law, was utilized because the team was aware of the danger the members in the room presented. Finally, the rule of distinction or discrimination holds that no other person besides the main target can get hurt during armed conflict (Rosert and Sauer, 2019). The team followed this approach when they entered Osamas bedroom. They only fired two shots  one in the head and the other in the chest of the target. According to Godlewska and Bernat (2021), the military teams decision to shoot one of Osamas wives was purely in self-defense. Therefore, as per the Rules of War, Operation Geronimo was fully justified.

Thirdly, by being the commander in chief of the military as explicated in the U.S. Constitution, President Obama had the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and to execute the plan. As the president, Obama had the main responsibility of protecting and, at the same time, defending the United States of America from any possible threats to national security. Osama bin Laden was a threat to national security because he was involved in terrorist and evil operations that resulted in the loss of life and property in the United States and Worldwide (Soherwordi and Khattak, 2020, p. 235). Simply put, bin Laden was in charge of all the operations undertaken by AI Qaeda. Obamas role as explained in Article II, section 2 of the U.S Constitution is to be the commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States as well as of the militia of the different states. Therefore, since he had supreme authority over the military, he had the legal authority to send the United States Navy to complete the operation. In essence, the main aim of the operation was to maintain peace in the U.S. and around the globe because Osama was involved in the killing of many innocent people.

Lastly, President Obama was in authority to give the order as per the rules of the Geneva Convention and human rights. However, some opponents claim that the initial order was to kill bin Laden which makes it a predetermined murder. Osama was killed outside the fight this rule of the Geneva Convention holds that it is a war crime to kill the enemy unable to fight due to sickness or wounds or the one making a genuine offer to surrender (Bakhsh et al., 2019, p. 103). According to Brennan, the former counterterrorism advisor, the forces tried their level best to complete the mission without causing any harm, but bin Laden was engaged and killed in the process (Fisher and Becker, 2021, p. 324). Experts from the UN Human Rights Council acknowledge the use of force as the last option for protecting life. Many lives were protected from possible future harm as a result of Operation Geronimo. Most importantly, the killing of Osama was permissible under Article 51 of the U.N. charter  it allowed the U.S. to target the AI Qaeda leader in self-defense.

Conclusion

Overall, President Obamas legal team worked hard, before and after Operation Geronimo, to ensure the U.S. militarys actions complied with the required laws and regulations. Immediately after the operation, questions were raised regarding whether or not President Obama had the legal authority to order the operation and execute the plan. However, there is hardly anyone who has challenged the militarys decision to kill Osama bin Laden. While this is the case, it is important to note that the decision to kill any human being must be within the law and for reasons that can easily be justified. This explains why Obamas legal team took time to assess the military actions and ensure the operation is undertaken as per the Rules of War, the U.S Law of War, the International Law, and the Geneva Convention. The four administration lawyers main responsibility was to draft rationales that could help overcome any legal obstacles that might emerge after the operation. Although some legal scholars raised some questions, their concerns were muted after the operation was deemed successful.

References

Bakhsh, F., Fatima, S., & Bilal, M. (2019). The possibility of conciliation between international humanitarian law and Islamic law of war: A myth or reality?.Pakistan Journal of Islamic Research, 20(2), 143-199

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.

Godlewska, S., &Bernat, P. (2021). The exceptionalism of Osama bin Ladens wives. Humanities and Social Sciences, 28(4), 19-29.

Pearcy, M. (2018). Sixty words: Teaching about the authorization for use of military force (AUMF). The Social Studies, 109(5), 255-264.

Rosert, E., & Sauer, F. (2019). Prohibiting autonomous weapons: Put human dignity first. Global Policy, 10(3), 370-375.

Soherwordi, S. H. S., & Khattak, S. A. (2020). 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), 234-300

Schaller, C. (2015). Using force against terrorists outside areas of active hostilitiesthe Obama approach and the Bin Laden raid revisited. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 20(2), 195-227.

This essay will evaluate the similarities and dissimilarities between the concepts that were established in the essay ‘Memex Revisited’ by Vannevar Bush and the article ‘Personal Dynamic Media’ by Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg. In the essay ‘Memex Revisited’, the author has suggested a piece of personal computer equipment for individual custom rather than the huge workstations that were serving the entire organizations. Moreover, the author has proposed that it would assist a person’s day-to-day contemplations unswervingly; fitting in with the standard thought courses of a man, rather than simply perform errands and every day’s simple jobs for him. The author supposes the memex would manage the quantity of information that people inset into it; the memex is supposed to study from its own skill and to improve its own imprints (Bush, n.d.).

The author claims that she will rely on the information that has already been retrieved in order to look ahead to the memex. Apparatuses of the present day divide into two pronounced disunions: firstly, there are those that enhance forces and senses of the person; and secondly, there are those that assist his thoughts. According to Vannevar Bush, the researchers do not require contending with the prior, even despite the fact that they have created our contemporary advancements along with all its welfares and its menaces possible for existence. The last are every now and then contained within the overall description of a thinking machine concept; however, this appears to be quite an ill-starred countenance, as they are not able to contemplate, they simply assist a person in doing so. They are of two kinds, analytical pieces of machinery, and data-handling pieces of machinery and these two kinds are united in a machine that possesses both analytical and data-handling capabilities from time to time.

In the article ‘Personal Dynamic Media’ by Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg the authors presented the concept of a Dynabook, the first notebook computer that would be a general-purpose device that could have been used by very different kind of people. The authors imply that the Dynabook would possess the suppleness and generalization of the strictly personal tool, joined with implements that would possess the supremacy of the mass tools that are for general use (Kay & Golberg, 1977). The authors of the ‘Personal Dynamic Media’ had established the goals of the research, which are: to deliver intelligible instances of the appliance of their product within issue expanses; to examine how the product could be applied to support the pictorial and aural abilities; to deliver incomparable liberty of admittance so children would have an ability to devote countless time searching for specifics; and to evaluate the unforeseen appliance of the Dynabook and Smalltalk by youngsters. The overall variety of potential handlers of the technology is so excessive that every endeavor to explicitly taking into consideration their requests and demands in the project of the Dynabook in advance would inevitably culminate in a catastrophic feature-laden assortment that would not be actually appropriate and apposite for any person.

References

Bush, Vannevar. (n.d.). Memex Revisited. Web.

Kay, A., & Golberg, A. (1977). Personal Dynamic Media. Computer, 10(3), 31-41.

Introduction

America is a federal nation whereby there exists a written constitution that outlines the powers of the central government and that of regional governments. Each of these two forms of government has officials and laws that act directly and independently on the American citizens. The president, the congress, and the Judiciary share power reserved to the national government while the federal governments share powers with the state government.

American politics are influenced by several factors, which can be classified into culture and socialization or micro social factors. Lets us have a deeper view of how micro social factors affect the political system of America. Macro social factors include state, religion, capital, work, education, and media among others. These factors may affect the political or the social life of the Americans directly or indirectly.

Impact of media on the American politics

One of the macro social factors affecting American politics is the media, which includes television, radio, internet, newspapers among others. Television is the most widely watched and has a major impact on the politics of America.

For instance, for presidential candidacy, if his name does not appear in the media scenes, it becomes difficult for the public to recognize him. The press holds the power to influence the public on who fits to be their leader. The way in which it frames its reports on candidates and elections determines the public perception on the politics.

Before 2008, only men candidates had managed to lead the United States since most of the presidential roles such as commander in chief were associated with masculinity and the Americans had this attitude from time immemorial. Since 2004, the publication in the media houses had so much influence on who the Americans thought should be their leader and this really affected the preceding general elections in 2008.

The Associated Press articles led the Americans to having a different perception and made them realize that a woman can also lead the country. In addition, the AP articles had this notion of treating a woman in White House as a normal scenario and this influenced even the other media houses as well as the general public (Carroll 12).

For many decades, media has always been very keen on the day-to-day lives of most of the politicians. In turn, most politician decisions are greatly influenced by media because media has a great impact on the American votes. For instance, in 2008, the then Senator Barrack Obama left his church, the Trinity Church of Chicago, in Illinois due to the information received from his political advisors and the public.

This decision was a pure influence from the media houses since they had aired these views for months before Barrack Obama settled on his decision to move as a matter of protecting his political image. He was against some critical statements made by Trinity’s church Revered Jeremiah Wright and a visiting pastor, Reverend Michael Pfleger (Woolford, 2009).

The media has made the American politicians to be very careful with their daily living even more than their political lives. They view that the image the public assumes on someone has a real impact on their decision of either voting him in or settling for a different person.

This norm among the politicians was triggered by the first televised debate between Senator John F. Kennedy and then Vice President Richard Nixon. For instance, after President Franklin D. Roosevelt was paralyzed by polio during his term, he ensured that he took all his public photos standing in order to maintain a good public image.

Media has destroyed many politicians’ careers and lives. For example, it disclosed Presdent Nixons Watergate Scandal that lead to his resignation in 1974, it destroyed the political and social image of Clinton after it disclosed his affairs with Monica Lewinsky in 1996, in 2008, New York governor Elliot Spitzer was publicized to have affairs with prostitutes thus he had to terminate his service to the public, among others. Thus for politicians to remain at the top in the US politics, they have to be very keen on their daily lives since the media is ever watching them (Woolford Para 1)

Effects of Religion on American Politics

The United States of America is recorded as the most religious developed nation. Americans have been deeply rooted to religion for years because they find it merging well with their cultural values about freedom of choice and individual initiative.

Religion has a great impact on the US politics and its major role is to caution the government whenever they engage in issues that against the religious beliefs. Religion is capable of splitting or uniting the government and scholars view religion as completely incompatible with politics. This is why the state and religion are independent bodies in America (Dunn 143).

In most cases, people’s vote on their leader is influenced by religion. This mostly depends with the views the politician is supporting and their relevance to a certain religion. The issue of abortion has been bringing a lot of controversy between the political arena and religion.

Such groups as Jews, Catholics, and Protestants have been holding anti-abortion campaigns thus giving the government so much pressure in their decision-making. Actually, the issue of abortion really divided people during the 1984 and 1992 elections. The Democratic Party was an anti-abortion camp while the republicans were supporting on coming up with abortion rights (Dunn 143).

Other areas of concern between politics and religion are issues of embryonic stem cell research and test-tube babies which, most religious people felt like it was against their believes in creation. Catholics have always been against contraceptives, which the government creates awareness publicly in media and press.

They believe that God commanded them to procreate thus they view it ungodly to support such government forums. Issues of slavery have also raised so much tension whereby religious groups like Christianity have always been against them. They campaign for equality among all people and freedom of movement, choice, and expression (Dunn 143).

Effects of education on US politics

The training and the education system in the US has had a major influence on the economy and in turn the US politics. It is viewed that the education system in America needs to be reviewed since it is the major cause of the deteriorating position of the US economy in the world. This is because US is losing its position in industrialization and development to countries like Japan and China and the whole blame goes to the system of education.

Due to the stiff competition in the world market, US politics are calling for a person who can be able to curb this challenge very fast before the situation gets out of hand. A politician who gets to convince the public that he is capable of this gets many supporters since the Americans are not ready to loose their position to the countries they have been looking down upon (Sturm Para 3).

Other areas of concern that are bringing pressure to the American politics are the lower growth rate of gross domestic product and productivity, the manufacturing output, which are all due to the quality of education. Though countries like Japan and Western Europe have not yet surpassed US, they are approaching it at a very high rat thus calling for a political system, which can manage this, which will probably through reviewing the education system (Sturm Para 5).

Conclusion

The American society is closely dependent on the country politics, which determines the welfare of the country many instances. There are several factors that influence the state of politics in the country, thus influencing the decisions of the country in one way or another. During the season of general elections, and throughout their stay, the politicians have to be much updated on the current events taking place in the country to avoid being caught unawares.

The above-discussed factors and the rest interact in a way that one cannot influence the political system without depending on another. Therefore, there is so much interdependence between the culture, socialization, and macro social factors. In the field of culture and socialization, one is able to know about the modern American culture, and what shapes peoples attitude towards politics. As discussed above, the macro social factors are diversified and have a great influence to the politics of the United States.

Works Cited

Carroll, Susan and Fox, Richard L. Gender and Politics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 2006. Web.

Dunn, Charles W. The future of Religion in American politics. Lexington, The University press of Kentucky. 2009. Web.

Sturm, Rolland. How Do Education and Training Affect a Country’s Economic Performance? 1993. Web.

Woolford, Andrew. Media Effects on Politics. 2008. Web.

Introduction

These two papers address the plight of Asian-Americans. The first paper covers the politics of Asian Americans, and the other one covers their immigration history. According to the first paper, Asian Americans are quite underrepresented in United States’ politics. This underrepresentation is not commensurate with their population trends. For instance, the paper notes that even in areas where Asian Americans are adequately represented population-wise, their political representation does not reflect this. The paper relates this development with Anti-Asian violence. It is noted that the data representing discrimination trends against Asian Americans is inaccurate. The rise of hate crimes against Asian Americans is mostly attributed to language barriers and the group’s unique customs.

Body

The claims made in this paper on Asian Americans’ political involvement are mostly true. Asian Americans are still underrepresented both in regional and national politics. Up to date there has not been any leading Asian American politician whose star has shined on the national level. However, the paper fails to address the willingness of Asian Americans to participate in the country’s political process. For instance, the paper does not offer data on the population segment of Asian Americans that is registered to vote. A demographical breakdown of this data would shed light on the root cause of this problem.

The other paper addresses the dynamics surrounding the immigration of Asians into the United States and their subsequent population growth. The paper starts by listing the current data on the population of Asians who have emigrated from different countries.

The data indicates that Philippine is the most likely origin for Asian Americans in United States. The data also specifies the likelihood of Asian Americans to intermarry. According to the paper, Asian Americans of Japanese origin have higher incidences of intermarriage than those of other origins. Intermarriage is also considered as one of the main determinants of shifts in population growth. The paper also addresses the controversies surrounding the data that the United States government previously had on Asian American immigrants.

The paper also covers the settlement patterns of Asian Americans across the United States. It is noted that previously, most Asian Americans settled on the West coast. However, over the years they have dispersed to other states. There is also the formation of enclaves by earlier groups. These were mostly found in areas like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Brooklyn among others. Compared to other minority groups, Asian Americans are more likely to settle in urban areas. The paper also covers other aspects of the Asian American population like its diversity, ethnic relations, education progress, and occupational representation.

Conclusion

This paper addresses the history of Asian Americans in great lengths. The use of scientific data helps legitimize the author’s point of view. Among the interesting points that have come up in this paper is the issue of intermarriage and its effects on Asian American population. The author claims that the population distribution of Asian Americans has been altered over the last five decades because of intermarriages. This is a fact one is likely to ignore when dealing with this subject.

Although this paper is supposed to be a scholarly article, with a non-partial author, there are hints of political undertones in the paper. The author seems to be openly sympathetic to the plight of Asian Americans. For instance, there is a lot of talk on underrepresentation and not a single mention of fair representation. This makes the paper seem one-sided. Overall, the paper is an informative piece on population dynamics of Asian Americans.