President Obama’s Justification for Killing bin Laden

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
National Self-Defence
Counter Terrorism Principles
Targeted Killings
The Independence of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Osama Bin Laden was a famous violent mass murderer and terrorist born in a family of more than fifty siblings. Bin Laden was also the founder of a Pan-Islamic organization that tortured thousands of innocent people worldwide. The Saudi Arabian nationalist and extremist were killed on May 2, 2011, under the instruction of Barack Hussein Obama, the 44^th American President. In Schlag’s (2018) opinion, the secrecy of lawyers in working on the legal actions surrounding the plot of Bin Laden’s death raised concerns regarding the justification of his killing. The text leans on the legality of targeted killings, national self-defence, counter-terrorism principle, and independence of Jus ad Bellum arguments to justify President Obama’s legal action for the murder of Osama Bin Laden.

National Self-Defence

President Obama’s entry into power for the second term depended on his choice to end terrorism in the U.S. The American administrator had to set a good record on his manifesto to gain voters’ trust. Before his election in 2009, Al Qaeda was a notorious gang whose attacks were fast-spreading, putting American lives in danger. As a result, Seharwat (2020) held that the Killing of Bin Laden was justifiable based on the preconditions of the nation’s right to defend her people. National-self defense is the attribute by which a country protects the majority from harm; the President, as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, has the legal right to declare war on any enemy of the state. Osama Bin Laden was one such person that threatened the peace of the nation following his remarks in a CNN interview. The terrorist described the U.S government as unjust, tyrannical, and criminal (Ritchie, 2021). The vengeance of President Obama on Bin Laden was legal because he was acting against an enemy of the state; declaring jihad catalyzed Obama’s administration to end Osama’s life before creating more damage to the state.

Counter Terrorism Principles

The September 11 attack also justifies the murder of Osama Bin Laden by the SEAL troop. Counter-terrorism principles stated in the European Union’s (EU) anti-terrorism scheme justify the killing of Bin Laden. President Obama launched the attack on Bin Laden to prevent, protect, respond, and pursue the art of international terrorism threat. Johnson (2018) demonstrated that Obama pursued the policy of counter-terrorism principle to prevent further attacks similar to the 9/11 event. In addition, the urge to reduce future terrorism across the country’s borders justifies the frameworks incorporated in the assassination of Bin Laden. Concurrently, the defiance of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden on the American government contributed to the nation’s anger towards his killing. In an international interview, the government responded to his unruly description of the county as a crime-oriented state. Sparing his life would have warranted more shootings and bombings across the U.S; thus, a justification for the course. Therefore, an order of shoot-to-kill by President Obama was legal because he prevented further damages from militants to his fellow citizens.

Targeted Killings

Every country has the right to pre-mediate the use of lethal force against unwanted groups or individuals in external custodies. Although the legality of targeted killings is questionable under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the approach of ending immoral and illegal transactions across country borders can apply in specific timings. An example includes the irritating behaviors of Osama Bin Laden and his crew; the troop were not only attacking the U.S but had previously made bombing even African countries. President Obama was angered by Bin Laden’s unending chest-thumbing of his unpunished past. Therefore, Seharwat (2020) argued that the killing of Bin Laden by the SEAL was justifiable by law because the country was eliminating unlawful combat from their physical custody through targeted killing. The Saudi-Arabian-based terrorist had been on the country’s radar for the longest time; there was no other time to kill him apart from what Obama implemented. Targeted killings occur against suspected terrorists; thus, President Obama had a legal justification for Bin Laden’s killing.

The Independence of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello

International Humanitarian Law justifies President Obama’s move to eliminate Osama Bin Laden through the independence of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. IHL provides guidelines to when and where a nation can engage in wars on two primary bases. First, the jus ad Bellum justifies the grounds by which things can transition from peace to occasions of forceful military use on a people. Secondly, the body reviews the responsibilities of belligerent nations and individuals engaging in war through Jus in Bello. Emily (2020) incorporates the reasoning of the IHL in determining the legality of Bin Laden’s death by stressing that jus ad Bellum was implemented in consultation with the event before the actual killing of the assassin. CNN news reported the engagement of Stephen Preston, Mary DeRosa, Admiral James, and Je Johnson in the legal proceedings and research on the government’s steps before the raiding (Emily, 2020). The legal advisors linked in the jus ad Bellum justifies the aftermath of the attack by the SEAL team at the official residence of Bin Laden.

If the call for the murder of the terrorist were illegal, the process would have been stopped by the general counsels who steered the fortunes of the case. Alternatively, the jus in Bello supports the engagement of President Obama in the shooting of Bin Laden based on its humanitarian approach to governing warfare. Jus in Bello tends to limit the depth of suffrage caused by wars; in this case, American life was more important than a single one that tormented the entire world. Leaving the Al Qaeda leader, a free person would have guaranteed more terror attacks. However, killing Bin Laden secretly saved the world from more terror attacks, mass murder, and destruction of public resources among hotspot regions.

Conclusion

The killing of Osama Bin Laden by President Obama’s administration seems unlawful. Nevertheless, humanely evaluating the case justifies the murder. The American constitution protects the lives of citizens, but on some occasions, the document can borrow IHL policies to kill an individual. President Obama was not only focused on his re-election to the presidency, but he also prioritized the peace of the people. Killing Bin laden saved the world from unnecessary shooting and unprecedented incitements of inter-state wars. I believe the step to raid Bin laden was moral and legal following the involvement of senior counsels in the research before the execution of the incident. The step to defend the state through anti-terror campaigns also justifies the bold step of President Obama to murder the world’s most feared terrorist. Bin Laden was killed because he was a target of the U.S government; the target had been marked as a dangerous person to the country’s peace; thus, leaving the deal unfinished would have caused more chaos.

References

Emily, C. (2020). The temporal and geographic reach of international humanitarian law. The Oxford Guide to International Humanitarian Law. Web.

Johnson, K. S. (2018). Swimming the multiple currents: The political and racial time of Barack Obama’s presidency. Looking Back on President Barack Obama’s Legacy, 133-147.

Ritchie, M. (2021). Gasping for war drama: The “about to die moment” of the Osama bin Laden assassination. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 1-15.

Schlag, G. (2018). The afterlife of Osama bin Laden: Performative pictures in the “War on Terror.”Critical Studies on Terrorism, 12(1), 1-18.

Seharwat, V. (2020). Legal justifications for the drone targeted killing.Drones and the Law, 55-81.

Click Here To Order Now!