Introduction
When it was revealed that the United States had begun a covert campaign to apprehend or kill Osama Bin Laden, the architect of the 9/11 attacks, the whole world was in disbelief. Operation Geronimo, the mission’s code name, was a stunning success; Bin Laden was assassinated in his Pakistani stronghold. However, several detractors claimed that President Obama had overstepped his authority by authorizing the mission, casting doubt on the operation’s legitimacy. This paper will demonstrate that President Obama had the legal right to authorize Operation Geronimo.
Defending the Legitimacy of President Obama’s Directive to Carry out Operation Geronimo
First and foremost, it is critical to remember that the President has broad power to use military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and their allies under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, that Congress passed in response to the attacks. The AUMF empowered the president to use all necessary and reasonable action against anybody or any group that harbored individuals who planned, authorized, committed, or helped in the 9/11 attacks (Obama, 2021). The terrorist group Al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama Bin Laden, were generally suspected of being behind the attacks. As a result, it might be argued that the AUMF granted President Obama the authority to approve Operation Geronimo.
In addition, the president has the capacity to direct military operations according to his position as commander in chief of the armed forces. As commander-in-chief, the president is in charge of leading the armed forces and making sure that the country is secure. In this position, the president has broad authority to use military force to defend the nation and its people (Marwan et al., 2021). It might be claimed that President Obama had the legal right to authorize Operation Geronimo as commander in chief, given the threat presented by Al-Qaeda and the significance of bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice.
The Pakistani government provided full cooperation and assistance for the operation. The procedure was carried out on Pakistani land, but the Pakistani government was fully aware of it and authorized its execution. This collaboration was essential to the mission’s success and to reducing the risk to US and Pakistani forces (Krishna, 2019). As a result, the operation was completed in conformity with international law and with the Pakistani government’s full participation.
The risk to uninvolved individuals was also kept to a minimum during the operation. The mission was precisely planned and executed to reduce the chance of collateral damage and innocent deaths. The SEAL squad that executed the operation was well-trained and furnished with the newest equipment and weaponry to enable them to complete the job with accuracy and precision (Krishna, 2019). As a result, the operation was carried out in line with the just war theory’s principles and with an eye on causing the least amount of harm to innocent civilians.
It is vital to highlight that the operation was carried out to ensure the safety and security of American citizens. With a lengthy history of plotting and carrying out attacks against US targets, Osama Bin Laden was widely considered one of the deadliest terrorists in the world (Obama, 2021). The United States was able to greatly lessen the threat presented by Al-Qaeda and shield American civilians from additional assaults by killing him. As a result, it may be argued that President Obama had a moral obligation to issue the order for the operation and safeguard the American people.
Operation Geronimo was put into motion by President Obama with legal authority. This conclusion is supported by the AUMF, which Congress passed following the 9/11 attacks, the president’s authority as commander in chief, the Pakistani government’s cooperation, the meticulous planning and execution of the operation, and the requirement to safeguard national security and American citizens (Marwan et al., 2021). While there may be reasonable differences about the mission’s propriety or morality, there is no doubt that when President Obama issued the order, he did so within the bounds of the law and in the best interests of the country. The accomplishment of Operation Geronimo showed how dedicated America is to prosecuting terrorists and protecting its citizens.
It is also important to note that Operation Geronimo’s legitimacy was upheld not only by legal authorities and government officials at the time but also by later court decisions. A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by the relatives of three people slain during an operation in 2013, saying that the government had done so within its legal rights (Marwan et al., 2021). The claim that President Obama had the legal right to authorize the operation and that it was carried out in conformity with international law is further supported by this decision.
It is important to note, nevertheless, that there are some very valid worries regarding the morality of targeted assassinations and the application of force outside of conventional conflict zones. There is disagreement about whether the AUMF should be extended to include groups and people who are not directly related to the attacks, despite the fact that it grants the president broad authority to use military action against those responsible for the 9/11 atrocities (Krishna, 2019). Concerns exist over targeted murders’ lack of accountability and transparency, as well as the possibility of misuse or unexpected repercussions.
Policymakers and legal professionals ought to take these worries seriously because they are legitimate. These do not, however, disprove the truth that President Obama had the legal right to authorize Operation Geronimo and that it was executed in a way that reduced injury to innocent civilians and increased the likelihood of success (Obama, 2021). While it is crucial to continue to examine and assess the morality and legality of targeted assassinations and the use of military force, it is also important to accept that such acts are occasionally required to uphold public safety and preserve the nation’s security.
Conclusion
In conclusion, President Obama has the full legal power to direct Operation Geronimo, and this authority is reinforced by other legal and moral factors. This conclusion is supported by the AUMF, which Congress passed following the 9/11 attacks, the president’s authority as commander in chief, the Pakistani government’s cooperation, the careful planning and execution of the operation, and the requirement to safeguard national security and American citizens. While there may be valid disagreements over the appropriateness or morality of the mission, there is no question that when President Obama gave the order, he did so within the boundaries of the law and in the interests of the nation. The accomplishment of Operation Geronimo showed how dedicated America is to prosecuting terrorists and protecting its citizens.
References
Krishna, S. (2019). Manhunt presidency: Obama, Race, and the third world. Third World Quarterly, 40(2), 284–297. Web.
Marwan, A. H., Baber, D., & Hassan, K. (2021). Representation of US, Pakistani government and its military after the operation ‘Neptune spear’ in the New York Times and the Guardian. Global Digital & Print Media Review, IV(III), 10–19. Web.
Obama, B. (2021). A promised land. Penguin.