Operation Geronimo is an operation carried out by the US Navy SEALs to eliminate Osama bin Laden. He was a member and leader of the Islamist terrorist organization Al Qaeda. As a result of an operation at his home in 2011, he was liquidated along with his son, a courier, his brother, and his wife (Lahoud, 2022). Due to many aggravating circumstances, such as collateral casualties, there has been a long debate about whether the operation was legal. Many studied facts and sources suggest that President Obama had no authority to plan and organize such an operation.
American Legislation
Many concerns about the legitimacy of Geronimo’s planning and execution have to do with consistency with Congress. The use of military force without its permission and regulation is an action that separates the branches of government. Thus, the President took military power into his own hands without consulting anyone in the administration or with the legislature. However, such a decision as conducting a military operation in another country should be decided collectively.
The constitution is the main set of rules of a democratic country and the president must comply with them. Moreover, the US Constitution provides that only in conjunction with Congress can the President declare any military action (Burns, 2019). Based on this, it can be argued that the actions that Obama took were illegitimate from the point of view of legality. Joint decision-making by the executive and legislative authorities in the military sphere provides for a system of checks and balances. Thus, power is not concentrated in the hands of the President, and responsibility is distributed to everyone. Moreover, it is unknown what the decision of Congress would have been if Obama had followed the rules and turned to them. There is a strong possibility that the President did not do everything according to the rules because he feared Congress would not give permission. In this case, Obama’s actions are explained by his wanting to bypass the planning approval procedures and start the operation as quickly as possible. Despite the fact that this is because, during the time of bureaucratic procedures, a terrorist could change his place of deployment, the norms of the law should be first of all.
The powers of the President of the United States in military operations are significantly limited. To begin planning for the operation, he had to pass a congressional review under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Betts, 2019). Thus, this action can be regarded as an excess of his powers by the President. Carrying out Geronimo’s operation without congressional authorization casts doubt on its legitimacy because the President did not seek approval. This situation undermines the legislature’s role and casts doubt on the effectiveness of the overall constitutional system in the United States. Such an overreach by the President and a disregard for the balance of power is a negative factor and defines the operation as illegal.
Obtaining a warrant from a federal court is a mandatory procedure before making any decisions regarding detentions. This process is also provided for by the Constitution and was violated by the President when developing Geronimo’s plan. Since the United States is a model of a democratic system, it has no right to violate this state structure while remaining an example for many countries. Such disregard for clearance procedures could be due to the secrecy of the operation, and the passage of checks and debates about the legality could provoke information leakage. This could be the reason that the special forces would miss bin Laden, and he would have time to relocate.
International Legislation
The elimination of a dangerous terrorist was positively perceived by the public and the world community, despite the illegality of the action itself. During the preparation of the plan to eliminate bin Laden, the operation was legitimized by almost all international organizations, such as the UN. This action had great weight and foundation to recognize the actions taken as legal. International treaties and organizations to which the United States belongs were supposed to be a deterrent against violating international law. In this context, this concept includes provisions on the right to life and the right to a trial. There is no doubt that Osama bin Laden was a terrorist and guilty of many crimes resulting in many victims. However, the judicial system is an integral part of justice that should not be overlooked. The trial was to be a whole part of the punishment process. Instead, the President set a precedent by summarily executing a man. Thus, these actions could negatively affect the country’s global position in the legal aspect.
In addition, international hostilities are only legal in self-defense. In this case, calling the operation to eliminate a specific person in the country’s self-defense is difficult. The official position of the United States on Operation Geronimo was precisely its self-defensive context. Self-defense involves using equal force compared to the threat when there are no other options (Thomas, 2023). However, the state did not provide evidence that it was impossible to detain the terrorist alive for trial. Accordingly, it can be said that he was killed for no reason, due to a formal order.
Another major problem in the operation’s approval was Pakistan’s invasion. The fact that the US military forces entered the sovereign space of another country is contrary to international rules. Thus, the President neglected the country’s territorial integrity instead of coordinating the operation with the head of Pakistan. International law is the determining factor in the relations of all countries, and neglect of it makes the United States the guilty party. The execution of a person makes the state such that it does not rely on a fair trial when conducting any operations. Accordingly, such a country cannot be fully called legal if it allows the elimination of a person without trial. In addition, it is worth noting that along with the head of Al Qaeda, some third-party people were eliminated, such as his son, the courier, as well as the courier’s wife and brother. Thus, the actions of the United States became even more severe.
Conclusion
Geronimo’s operation was undoubtedly crucial in the fight against world terrorism. However, when holding such events, the President of a democratic country must rely on domestic and international law. This should be done in order to properly follow all procedures for the approval of the operation and its planning. The United States at that time ignored all the requirements of international norms and its own Constitution. Such actions of the President can be regarded as going beyond the limits of authority. Any military action must be reviewed by several types of authorities to regulate the balance of power. In this case, all the procedures for formalizing and approving the planning of the operation were skipped, which gives grounds to conclude that Geronimo’s operation was illegal.
References
Betts, R. K. (2019). The grandiosity of grand strategy. The Washington Quarterly, 42(4), 7-22. Web.
Burns, S. (2019). The politics of war powers: The theory and history of presidential unilateralism. University Press of Kansas.
Lahoud, N. (2022). The Bin Laden Papers: How the Abbottabad Raid Revealed the Truth about Al-Qaeda, Its Leader and His Family. Yale University Press.
Thomas, A. J. (2023). Skepticism, Self-Defense/Help and Global Justice. In The Open World, Hackbacks and Global Justice (pp. 37-82). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. Web.