Operation Neptune Spear, otherwise known as Operation Geronimo, was a CIA-led operation carried out on May 2, 2011, intended to kill Osama Bin Laden, the founder and the initial leader of al-Qaeda, the Islamist militant group responsible for numerous acts. Geronimo was the code name that two Navy SEALS teams received as they headed to a walled compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, to kill or capture al-Qaeda’s leader. After the successful implementation of the operation, President Barack Obama praised anonymous heroes that managed to track and kill Bin Laden. To this day, there is some doubt as to whether the President had the legal right to authorize the operation and enable the plan’s execution. At the same time, some concerns were put forth as to what specific order did the Navy SEALS receive: to capture or kill.
Several years after the operation, news reports and newspaper articles started coming out to emphasize the lack of information available on why the decision was made. In a Bloomberg op-ed, Carter (2019) questioned whether Obama’s administration was legally righteous in capturing or killing Bin Laden at his Pakistan hideout. The legality of the decision and the order to carry out the plan depended on whether the mission order was capturing or killing Bin Laden, as well as the indicated concerns regarding the propriety of the attack. However, regardless of whether the order was to kill or capture, it was entirely legal.
The legality of the decision lies in the regulations under International Humanitarian Law, usually limited to sufficient-scope and intensity conflicts and warrant treatment under the legal regimen of “war.” Also, some terrorists are covered by the International Human Rights Law, which represents a legal construct of law enforcement. Since 9/11, the debates over applying the two sets of law to non-state actors ended, with the US taking a strong position that it was at war with al-Qaeda, as reiterated by Obama’s administration (McCrisken, 2011). The best view of the laws today is that terrorists who are members of organized armed groups participated in continuous military operations against the US, just as any members of traditional military forces. This means that they can be legally attacked at any time and anywhere because they pose a threat to the United States national security. Besides, there is little doubt as to the fact that Osama Bin Laden played a crucial part in the operations of the terrorist organization.
In support of the argument that Obama’s administration has the legal right to assassinate Bin Laden, it is essential to mention the distinction between peacetime and wartime assassinations. According to the Memorandum of Law: Executive Order 12333 and Assassination, an assassination during a peaceful time is an unlawful killing that is prohibited by international law (Parks, 1989). However, combatants are legal targets regardless of time and their activities at the time of being targeted. Such attacks against combatants are not considered assassinations unless they are performed in a “treacherous” way, as banned by the 1907 article 23(b) of the Annex to the Hague IV (Parks, 1989). There are many examples in the Executive Order 12333 discussing legal wartime killings, such as the WWII operation targeting Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto responsible for the Pearl Harbor attacks (Parks, 1989). Based on this evidence, there is no credibility in the argument that the killing of Bin Laden was an assassination and was unlawful under international law.
When it comes to the doubts regarding the legality of carrying out the attack on Bin Laden in Pakistan without the permission or the advance notification of the government, President Obama’s administration used the legal notion of the “unwilling and unable” nations as to acting against threatening actors within the limits of their borders (Deeks, 2012). Because Bin Laden presented a threat to American security, the US had the legal right to act forcefully against the threats, regardless of the sovereignty of the national level. Moreover, Pakistan could have taken action before the US and targeted Bin Laden; however, he managed to reside in the country without being disturbed for years. Therefore, the US could not trust Pakistan and disclose information about the operation due to the fears of a possible tip-off and subsequent failure.
To conclude, all evidence points to the fact that President Obama’s administration had the legal right to pursue the armed targeting of Osama Bin Laden in the context of the war on terrorism. In fact, the administration implemented a more effective policy of counterterrorism compared to its predecessor, which yielded tangible results. The main concern left at the end of the exploration is the lack of transparency regarding the way in which Operation Geronimo was carried out. However, combining all evidence about the case, including the Memorandum of Law: Executive Order 12333 and Assassination, International Humanitarian Law, and International Human Rights Law it becomes clear that no international law was violated, nor was Bin Laden under the protection of any policies that could have prevented his demise.
References
Carter, S. (2019). Obama’s secret rationale for the raid on Bin Laden. Bloomberg. Web.
Deeks, A. (2012). ‘Unwilling or unable’: Toward a normative framework for extra-territorial self-defence. Virginia Journal of International Law, 52(3). 483.
McCrisken, T. (2011). Ten years on: Obama’s war on terrorism in rhetoric and practice. International Affairs, 87(4), 781-801. Web.
Parks, H. (1989). Memorandum of law: Executive order 12333 and assassination. Web.