Introduction
There are important legal problems about the legality and conduct of Operation Geronimo, the operation carried out under President Obama’s administration to kill Osama bin Laden. Although the operation’s goal was achieved, some legal frameworks—particularly those on conflict resolution and international law—were circumvented throughout its planning and execution. Under President Obama’s administration, the 40-minute mission called Geronimo that resulted in Osama Bin Laden’s death was carried out, and it is an operation that has remained controversial. The issues only aim to determine whether it was lawful to order such a procedure executed outside the United States of America.
Is President Obama legally able to command and carry out the full plan? This is one of the latest worries that has raised much controversy. To address the matter, it is necessary to consider whether the operation complied with the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1907 Hague Rules concerning armed conflicts (Khorram-Manesh & Burkle Jr, 2024). Despite achieving its objective of eliminating Osama bin Laden, Operation Geronimo raised significant legal concerns regarding its compliance with international law. Thus, Obama lacked the legal authority to execute Operation Geronimo, setting a dangerous precedent that undermines the foundational norms of national sovereignty and lawful conduct in international relations
The Legal Nature of Operation Geronimo by President Obama
The dispute around the code name Geronimo arose from media reports claiming that the U.S. effort to assassinate Osama bin Laden utilized the code name as a reference to the operation as a whole, to the wanted bin Laden, or to the act of murdering or arresting bin Laden (Mustafa et al., 2020). Although government sources later refuted press reports, it was alleged that Geronimo had been employed in the attack to allude to bin Laden personally.
Operation Neptune Spear served as the official operations code name, with Jackpot denoting bin Laden as a person and Geronimo denoting bin Laden’s potential capture or demise. The secrecy surrounding the operation’s legality is further undermined by the choice to notify Congress only after the fact. Concerns regarding responsibility and respect for sovereignty are raised by the disregard for established procedures for military operations conducted on foreign soil.
Furthermore, to carry out the plan, he lacked the legal authority to give the go-ahead for the entire procedure. The way Operation Geronimo was carried out did not comply with the rules of armed warfare. President Obama employed only a portion of the four government lawyers during the planning of Operation Geronimo, a significant incident (Shahbaz, 2023). These attorneys’ only focus was on crafting original arguments to overcome any legal obstacles that might prevent the plan from being carried out as intended. The legal counsels proceeded to write covert documents to protect themselves from having to defend the legal processes they followed in carrying out the plan—especially if things did not go according to plan (Barak, 2021).
Firstly, these documents are crucial evidence that, given the haste with which Operation Geronimo was carried out, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1907 Hague Rules were ignored (Khorram-Manesh & Burkle Jr, 2024). President Obama’s reliance on a select group of lawyers highlights a lack of transparency and consultation in the decision-making process. Second, it was illegal to prepare SEAL Team 6, which was supposed to start the mission, under the law of war. Eventually, the crew was dispatched to another nation without that nation’s permission. Given the deadly nature of the scheme, this was a grave error made by the president and the attorneys who carried it out (Barak, 2021).
Exacerbating the situation, Congress was not notified until after the enemy forces had been submerged. As Robert M. Chesney noted, a legal problem arose when the attorneys consented to carry out the mission without consulting the other participants (Barak, 2021). Furthermore, several legal experts contended that there was a good likelihood that President Obama’s administration could have withdrawn the secret if the SEALs had been able to locate Osama. If things did not pan out, the United States would probably claim it had nothing to do with the raid.
Finally, President Obama committed a grave breach of international law when he decided to approve a covert attack on foreign land. The fact that the two nations were not at war at the time is an important factor that renders the entire endeavor illegal (Khattak et al., 2020). When two nations are not at war, international law requires permission before any mission is undertaken on their territory. Therefore, President Obama should have requested authorization from the Pakistani government before the start of Operation Geronimo. In this context, the Pakistani government would have been responsible for deciding whether to detain Osama Bin Laden or permit an American raid on his residence (Mazhar & Goraya, 2020).
However, there was the consideration of the attorneys’ belief that the presence of the Pakistani government might enable the targets to flee. Therefore, it would be legitimate to use a unilateral military intervention to repress and destroy the target, who was a persistent threat to others. President Obama broke both Pakistani sovereignty and international law, even though the choice seemed like a great bargain that would spare the lives of many nations that had suffered under the Al Qaeda wartime leader (Khattak et al., 2020). This unilateral action further underscores the operation’s deviation from established legal norms and international protocols.
Therefore, Operation Geronimo and the execution of the strategy to kill Osama Bin Laden were not authorized by law by President Obama. Devoid of consent from the Pakistani government, the site of the raid, and the American populace, the entirety of the operation appears to have been orchestrated and executed clandestinely (Mazhar & Goraya, 2020). The fact that so few lawyers were involved in the process suggests that President Obama was concerned about the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1907 Hague Conventions (Khorram-Manesh & Burkle Jr., 2024). It set down the laws governing armed combat, sparking a heated debate.
As a result, the mission was unlawful because the whole planning process for the operation was carried out illegally. President Obama disregarded the regulations governing foreign raids, even though the mission concluded as anticipated. This implies that other nations may attack the United States and murder a target without approval from the government in the future, which would progressively deteriorate relations between the two countries.
Conclusion
In conclusion, although the killing of Osama bin Laden was a major victory in the war on terror, the legal requirements were not met in the authorization and execution of Operation Geronimo. President Obama lacked the legal power to order and carry out Operation Geronimo in compliance with accepted legal standards, as supported by several important facts. First, reliance on a small panel of administrative attorneys to provide legal defenses raised questions about the openness and consultation in the decision-making process.
In addition, the mission was unlawful as it was carried out without the sovereign state’s consent. The Obama administration had set a hazardous precedent by disregarding legal procedures and traditions. In the future, when nations take actions that greatly affect the international community, they must respect legal norms and obtain the necessary permissions.
References
Barak, M. P. (2021). Can you hear me now? Attorney perceptions of interpretation, technology, and power in Immigration Court. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 9(4), 207–223.
Khattak, J. A., Afridi, M. K., & Hussain, S. (2020). Pakistan as frontline state in war on Terror: Framing analysis of The New York Times. Global Mass Communication Review,5(4), 172–185.
Khorram-Manesh, A., & Burkle Jr, F. M. (2024). The unprecedented purposeful targeting of health systems and hospitals in wars and conflicts: An immediate call for global intervention. Journal of Health and Human Experiences, 10(1).
Mazhar, M. S., & Goraya, N. S. (2020). An analytical study of Pak-US relations: Post Osama (2011-2012). South Asian Studies, 27(1).
Mustafa, G., Ali, N., Siddiqui, S., & Shah, Y. F. (2020). Historical analysis of Pakistan’s relations with United States of America under Obama’s administration. Journal of Historical Studies, 6(1), 119-142.
Shahbaz, M. (2023). Revisiting friends & foes: US-Pak relations’ turbulent history and future. Open Journal of Political Science, 13(1), 88–118.