Introduction
On May 2, 2011, the United States declared a decisive victory in the war on terrorism. Geronimo’s operation culminated in eliminating Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization that was behind the September 11 attacks that shocked America. The Navy SEAL raid on a mansion in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad is considered a model operation, but some aspects still raise questions. Many human rights activists criticized bin Laden’s assassination, believing that Obama had no legal authority to conduct the operation. However, others disagree, believing that what happened was entirely consistent with the needs of the United States at the time, and therefore this kind of brutality can be justified. This essay will discuss how legal Geronimo was and what role former US President Barack Obama played in its implementation.
Summary of Events
The tragedy claimed three thousand lives and became the most significant terrorist attack in the entire history of America. The investigation, on which seven thousand FBI employees worked, came to the unequivocal conclusion: terrorists from al-Qaeda were behind the attack. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has become the main target in the war on terrorism (Brenan, 2021). A Pakistani intelligence official informed the US of the whereabouts of the al-Qaeda leader in exchange for money and a residence permit. The CIA wanted to ensure that the tenant of the mysterious fortress mansion was bin Laden, so a secret campaign was carried out. Genetic samples of bin Laden’s family members were obtained, so it became clear that the suspect was the main leader. During the SEAL Team 6 raid, the al-Qaeda leader was killed.
The Position of Human Rights Defenders
According to the news, bin Laden was unarmed but was killed because he resisted. This presentation of events did not suit human rights defenders since it was unclear how bin Laden could have fought without weapons. In their opinion, the military should have taken the terrorist alive and brought him to justice. They believe that the events of 9/11 cannot be used as an excuse for denying justice. What has happened seems wild because it resembles the ancient customs of conflict resolution on the tit-for-tat principle.
Consequences of bin Laden’s Death
Although the operation was successful and led to the elimination of the founder of al-Qaeda, the organization continues to threaten the international community. Shortly before bin Laden was killed, he, while still remaining the ideological leader of the organization, no longer participated in the operational leadership. After the death of the Pakistani leader, the organization was headed by his assistant Ayman al-Zawahiri. Accordingly, even if Obama had the legal right to conduct the operation, it turns out there was no particular need for it. Branches of Al-Qaeda and terrorist cells continue to operate in the Arabian Peninsula, Africa, and Southeast Asia (Bergen, 2021). Ten years after the tragedy, the figure of bin Laden was no longer of great importance in the activities of international terrorism. The death of the September 11 attacks organizer should be perceived as an act of belated retaliation.
Legitimate Disagreements Regarding the Operation
The order was carried out without the consent of Congress but based on a permit issued by the American Parliament back in 2001 after the terrorist attacks in New York. According to Executive Order 12333, the prohibition on killing also does not apply if the murder was carried out in self-defense (Breitenbücher, 2021). As noted earlier, according to the official version, bin Laden resisted. However, the operation did not initially envisage the possibility of bringing the leader of the terrorist organization to trial; it was supposed to be murder. Pakistani representatives, in turn, were convinced that the killing violated the country’s sovereignty.
The al-Qaeda leader should have been subjected to a fair trial, as required by the rule of law since this order is assumed even for serial killers or violent criminals. On the other hand, it is unlikely to consider what happened solely in the plane of legal procedure. One should also consider the danger of bin Laden as the leader of terrorists, their icon, and financier. Taking into account all the circumstances of the operation, in a certain sense, experts can, in a certain sense, consider this situation as forced. However, eliminating bin Laden was necessary, as it carried a symbolic meaning. It implied that the United States would not leave unpunished those who committed terrorist attacks on its territory.
How Will This Affect the Development of International Law?
Depending on the wording of the international consensus on the legality of this murder, one can expect either the expansion of the state’s capacity for extrajudicial violence in national laws or the discrediting of international law. In war conditions, international military law comes into force, which allows the elimination of an enemy participating in hostilities (Breitenbücher, 2021). Parties to hostilities can be not only states but also organized population groups. However, at the time of the operation, al-Qaeda was no longer as centralized as it used to be. Directly international law does not allow the physical elimination of a state leader by a third party. However, the critical question is whether the exceptions of the general principles of international justice are applicable in this situation.
In 1976, an executive order was passed in the United States prohibiting the commission of assassinations by the country’s special services. Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan have consistently improved the document prohibiting the planning and execution of political assassinations. However, concerning bin Laden, this prohibition theoretically allows one to circumvent the concept of Harold Koch (in the framework of self-defense, killing is legal). Suppose all the leading countries officially recognize the liquidation of Bin Laden as absolutely legal. Therefore, it would be logical to expect the introduction of appropriate legal gaps, allowing for the pre-trial liquidation of unsuitable state figures, into national legislation (Banka & Quinn, 2018). The only reason for the assassination of bin Laden in such a situation could be the suspicion that the terrorist may wear an explosive belt since it was confirmed that Osama bin Laden was unarmed at the time of the capture.
Conclusion
Bin Laden’s responsibility for the terrorist acts has not been confirmed in any court. Accordingly, he was not sentenced to death, which was carried out by the special forces with his kill shot in bin Laden’s eye. Thus, the legality of such a murder raises several questions. It can be considered that the controversial actions of American special forces have deprived modern society of the chance to defeat international terrorism by legal means. Indeed, in recognizing bin Laden as terrorist number one, such fundamental legal principles as the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial were ignored. If no consensus is reached on this issue, the use of the corpus of international law will become nominal.
References
Banka, A., & Quinn, A. (2018). Killing norms softly: the US targeted killing, quasi-secrecy and the assassination ban. Security Studies, 27(4), 665-703. Web.
Bergen, P. (2021). Osama bin Laden changed history but on 9/11 but not in the way we expected. CNN. Web.
Breitenbücher, D. (2017). U.S., lethal operations against Al-Qaeda leaders. ICRC Law & Policy Newsletter. Web.
Brenan, M. (2021). A look back at reactions to bin Laden’s death. Gallup. Web.