Osama bin Laden was undoubtedly one of the most significant threats to the security of the United States and the entire world. His atrocities were majorly demonstrated by the 9/11 attack, which remains one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in history. He orchestrated other onslaughts on American citizens and service members stationed abroad. The killing of bin Laden was a major military achievement under the Obama administration. The existence of bin Laden was making the world a dangerous place not only for Americans but for innocent civilians worldwide, who tend to be easier targets for terrorists to propagate their propaganda and demonstrate their cruelty. Although bin Laden’s death did not prevent the rise of Islamic militia, it dealt the Al Qaeda group a major blow. Since Operation Geronimo’s success led to bin Laden’s killing on May 1, 2011, in Pakistan, the question of whether the operation was legally justified continues to be a debate. This paper submits that Obama had the legal authority to conduct the operation.
To effectively understand whether Operation Geronimo was lawful, there is a need to analyze the legal authority defining the operation and whether the operation obeyed the rules of armed conflict. The legal authority of the operation can be traced back to the 9/11 attack. After the attack, Congress permitted the President to use force against the perpetrators of the atrocity, which involved using the National Command Authority to order armed forces to lunch attacks on Al Qaeda (Zeeh, 2022). The United Nations Article gives nations the inherent right to defend themselves against threats that undermine their national security (Upeniece, 2018). However, self-defense must be conducted within the principles of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which protect people not involved in the war from being targeted during military operations (van Dijk, 2018). Among those protected by these conventions include civilians, humanitarian workers, the sick, and prisoners of war, among others. According to the paradigm of self-defense, those targeted during military raids include direct participants in armed attacks and civilians who are directly involved in armed attacks (Upeniece, 2018). Self-defense authorizes the execution of operations on targets wherever they are planning and executing their threats.
Osama bin Laden was highly secretive and did not have a permanent location. He planned and executed terrorist attacks from different locations. Therefore, the CIA tracked him to Abbottabad, Pakistan, and justified a military raid based on the self-defense paradigm. The question of whether the main objective of the operation should have been to capture bin Laden rather than kill him has been greatly debated. Some critics of the operation argue that the main objective should have been to capture bin Laden and that killing him violated his right to human life. However, the principle of the right to freedom from arbitrary deprivation of life does not protect individuals engaging directly in armed conflicts, especially by powers not within their effective control.
His entire life, bin Laden had been on the run, thwarting any attempts to capture him. This demonstrates that he was not within the effective control of the US Special forces. If bin Laden had been within the effective control of the US forces, his life would have been justified, and it would have violated his right to life to kill him. Furthermore, Osama had not shown intention to surrender. Killing him did not violate the law of war because he did not intend to surrender, and capturing him was not a clear alternative.
According to Article 48 of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, military operations must be guided by the principle of distinction. This principle requires a clear distinction between civilians and the military target during a military raid (van Dijk, 2018). The Rome Statue ad the International Humanitarian Law allows the execution of military attacks on justified targets even if such attacks may result in loss of civilian life. However, such attacks must meet the principle of proportionality, where the incidental civilian causalities should not exceed the military advantage of the attack. Operation Geronimo has demonstrated to have met both the principle of proportionality and the principle of distinction under international law, making it legally justifiable.
Another significant debate has been caused by the presence of US Special Forces in foreign territories without the local government’s knowledge and consent. Operation Geronimo was conducted without the knowledge of the Pakistan government. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter addresses whether the Obama directive violated international law regarding Pakistan’s sovereignty (“United Nations Charter”, n.d). According to this article, members of the UN must refrain from using force that undermines the political independence of other states. The objective of Operation Geronimo was clear and did not in any way interfere with the political independence of Pakistan. Bin Laden was not a government official in the Pakistani government; therefore, his killing did not in any way interfere with the political administration of Pakistan.
The success of the operation was based on the high level of secrecy. Informing the Pakistani government would have undermined the secrecy of the operation (Aziz & Shah, 2020). The Pakistani government had demonstrated being cooperative with bin Laden. The failure of the Pakistani government to provide the US with the whereabouts of Osama showed that they were reluctant about his elimination. It was nearly impossible to imagine that the Pakistani government did not have intelligence about the presence of bin Laden in Abbottabad, even though his house was situated within the vicinity of a Pakistani military base (Aziz & Shah, 2020). Given how sophisticated bin Laden operated, the mission’s objective would have been seriously compromised if the Pakistani government had been involved. It is therefore justifiable that the operation was conducted within international law with respect to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which protects sovereign states from political interference by foreign powers.
The Operation by the Special Forces was executed based on the principles of war and self-defense. For instance, the Special Forces observed the principle of military necessity, proportionality, and distinction. Osama had demonstrated lethally justified in referring to him as a hostile target, thus creating a military necessity to engage him. His hostility created the need to expand the military objective of the United States beyond its borders to protect itself against future attacks from bin Laden. On this basis, the US was engaging other hostile groups, such as the Taliban, thus satisfying the principle of military necessity.
Regarding the principle of proportionality, the Special Forces used force proportional to the threat offered by those in bin Laden’s compound. For instance, bin Laden had access to weapons and did not show intentions of surrendering. Bin Laden was neutralized by using small arms, which was proportional to the threat he presented to the Special Forces. Therefore, the principle of proportionality was satisfied according to the Rome statute. Lastly, the Special Forces observed the principle of discrimination by avoiding civilian casualties. Only those who used force were engaged, and the civilians targeted posed a significant threat to the Special Forces. For instance, bin Laden was very discerning, and the target was clear. The Special Forces acted with utmost precision and only aimed at the target. The alleged shooting of the other three people, including bin Laden’s son, wife, and courier present in the compound, was done out of self-defense because they allegedly engaged the Special Forces. The other civilians present in the compound were spared. This clearly demonstrates the principle of distinction by the Special Forces.
Operation Geronimo has demonstrated to have complied with both domestic and international laws. President Obama’s decision was constitutionally justified because the constitution gives the President the mandate to execute domestic and international laws. The 2001 congressional authorization of the then President to use appropriate force to neutralize targets that pose a significant threat to US security. Congress can regulate the terms of warfare the US engages in within and outside its territories. This makes President Obama’s authorization of Operation Geronimo legally justifiable.
In conclusion, Osama bin Laden was a significant threat to the United States national security. Bin Laden’s atrocities on America showed how hostile he was to the US service members and innocent civilians worldwide. His hostility created a military necessity that justified President Obama’s authorization of Operation Geronimo. The legal framework of the operation was based on the paradigm of self-defense guided by the 1949 Geneva conventions.
References
“United Nations Charter” | United Nations.
Aziz, T., & Shah, A. S. (2020). The Impact of War on Terror on Pakistan’s Sovereignty after 9/11. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 40(1). Web.
Upeniece, V. (2018). Conditions for the lawful exercise of the right of self-defence in international law. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 40, p. 01008). EDP Sciences.
van Dijk, B. (2018). Human rights in war: On the entangled Foundations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. American Journal of International Law, 112(4), 553-582.
Zeeh, T. X. (2022). The authorization for use of military force, its impact on international legal regimes, and solutions through judicial review. Web.