Introduction
Geronimo or Neptune’s Spear is an operation authorized by Barack Obama and carried out on May 2, 2011, by a particular unit of DEVGRU to eliminate Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist organization. After that, Barack Obama delivered a speech that caused an international outcry. Most approved of the results of Operation Neptune Spear, but some condemned it. On May 6, al-Qaeda confirmed bin Laden’s death. The analysis of the basics of law has proved that Obama had the legal authority to carry out this operation.
Legislation Aspects
There are three aspects in which this operation by Barack Obama is more justified from different points of view than not. First, al-Qaeda, led by bin Laden, had carried out about two dozen brutal terrorist attacks by that time, which had led to the death of many civilians and military personnel who countered them (Byman & Mir, 2022). Secondly, from an emotional point of view, this terrorist group did not receive a proper response after the September 9 tragedy, which caused public unrest for a long time. Finally, intelligence had evidence that bin Laden was planning a powerful new attack ten years after 9/11, and steps had to be taken to prevent it (Pfarrer, 2011). Without the relevant legislative acts, this operation could have been criminal and willful, especially since its preparation details were kept secret until it was carried out. However, the U.S. Congress after the September 11, 2001 attacks passed a resolution, “Authorization of the use of military force against terrorists,” authorizing the President of the United States to use “necessary and appropriate forces against those states, organizations or persons” that took part in the attacks (Searcey, 2011). It was this piece of legislation that the Obama administration referred to in justifying the use of force, appropriately justifying the activity.
No less important was that, according to the law, the ongoing military special operation should not have affected the civilian population in any way. As a result, a massive air strike on the outskirts of the Pakistani city where Osama bin Laden was allegedly located was ruled out because, in this case, the operation would have cost human lives among civilians and would have caused significant infrastructure damage. The use of a drone capable of hitting pinpoint targets seemed more acceptable, but American intelligence agencies needed to get vital intelligence from the bin Laden house and make sure that the al-Qaeda leader was killed, if not captured. The organizer of the special operation took the risk and chose the ground method of assault by the forces of the special forces.
On the other hand, there was the complicated fact that in 1998, bin Laden was indicted in the U.S. District Court of Manhattan. According to the law, a person under charge must be detained and brought to court. However, after the operation, many governments and the media questioned whether the order was to kill or take life (Pfarrer, 2011). Legally, no one has filed claims against Obama within the country. Moreover, the news was received positively among the population, except in some areas and communities. The lack of evidence of the assassination of bin Laden and the dissatisfaction of Islamic leaders with the form of burial, rather than any legal issues of the special operation, caused fierce disputes. Although each participant was not supposed to expand on the details of the work of the special forces group, various aspects of the operation began to leak into the press. However, this reflects individual responsibility, which also had no consequences for the participants.
According to the official version, bin Laden was unarmed but was killed because he resisted. Such a presentation of events did not suit human rights activists. Claudio Cordone, senior director of Amnesty International, said it was unclear how bin Laden could resist without weapons. In his opinion, the military should have taken the terrorist alive and brought him to justice (Bowcott, 2011). Years later, Bissonnet and O’Neill told the media that bin Laden did not attempt to defend himself. However, even in this case, their decision to eliminate the terrorist could be fully justified.
As a consequence, most agreed that the killing during the operation was an act of self-defense. The United States called for disclosing more facts about the case and the investigation to assess the operation’s legality within the framework of international humanitarian law. However, there was an opinion that this operation was an extrajudicial execution without due process (Bowcott, 2011). The issue of the dilemma about the secrecy of the task and informing the organizations interested in the fight against terrorism is raised. Obama is being sued for an uncoordinated, secret, and short-term solution, a kind of intervention in Pakistan. However, this operation was dictated by the need for international security.
Conclusion
Barack Obama’s responsibility for setting in motion the Operation Geronimo plan was justified domestically and met with dissent only within media outcry, related more to the consequences of the deed than to the motives. The accusations were primarily verbal and directed at a request to shed more light on the investigation and the path leading up to that decision. On the other hand, the secrecy of the operation preparation allowed the United States to carry it out successfully and without losses. Most of the claims rested on the recognition of an act of self-defense. Although many organizations, most often aimed at protecting human rights, did not approve of the unauthorized conduct of the operation, Barack Obama and the U.S. government have not received a proper legally documented charge to this day. However, the analysis of legislative aspects indicates that the then-president had legal authority.
References
Bowcott O. (2011) Osama bin Laden: US responds to questions about killing’s legality. The Guardian. Web.
Pfarrer, C. (2011). SEAL Target Geronimo: The inside story of the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. St. Martin’s Press.
Searcey, D. (2011) Killing Was Legal Under U.S. and International Law, Many Experts Say. The Wall Street Journal. Web.