Operation Geronimo (OG), also known as Neptune Spear, was a military operation conducted by the U.S. in Pakistan and formally authorized by President Obama twelve years ago. The military operation revolved around capturing/defeating Osama Bin Laden. Resulting in the killing of the world’s most famous Islamic terrorist, OG is sometimes regarded as an ambiguous decision in terms of lawfulness and alignment with the U.S. President’s legal power. However, based on Public Law (PL) 107-40 and compliance with the UN Charter and international human rights requirements, it can be argued that President Obama had the legal authority to order and execute OG.
With regard to domestic law, President Obama’s authority to execute/order the said operation was in line with PL 107-40. The latter sought to enhance the country’s ability to respond to 9/11 organizers within its borders and abroad. President Obama ordered the establishment of SEAL Team Six, a special operations group tasked with executing OG, in April 2011, and the operation started at the very beginning of May (Marks, 2019). The 107-40 law accepted by the 107th Congress in 2001 simplified military force use procedures, further specifying the War Powers Act (Burns, 2021). Particularly, it authorized the U.S. President to use the necessary/appropriate force against collective and individual actors involved in organizing, planning, or aiding the 9/11 tragedy (Burns, 2021). Preventing further attacks against the U.S. was the key requirement to use force appropriately.
In other words, President Obama was enabled to initiate military efforts deemed appropriate to punish both organizations and individuals connected to the tragedy of 9/11 and eliminate the remaining threat to the U.S. The idea of OG did not run counter to any of the domestic law’s requirements. Specifically, the U.S. had enough evidence to regard the operation’s target as the key decision-maker behind the 9/11 bombings, including his own testimony (Marks, 2019; Paust, 2011). The target’s ongoing and unaddressed efforts to lead Al-Qaeda would strengthen the terrorist threat against the U.S., making the opportunity to stop bin Laden’s activity an appropriate application of the country’s domestic law.
Regarding international directions, President Obama had the authority to order and complete the cross-border operation without notifying Pakistani authorities because his efforts would not contradict the UN Charter. Pakistan did not know about Obama’s OG plan until its successful execution, which might be wrongfully used to argue for the operation’s illegal nature. The UN Charter seeks to stop the unauthorized use of self-defense by state parties (Paust, 2011). Article 51 involves no need for obtaining the “consent of the state from which the non-state actor’s attacks emanate” to initiate self-defense operations, making unannounced operations possible (Paust, 2011, p. 569). The country anticipated to become a location for a self-defense operation does not need to consent to the operation (Paust, 2011). Furthermore, it is not accurate that states have no right to self-defense in territories not belonging to them in the case of international armed conflicts (Paust, 2011). Considering this, there were no clear international barriers to limit the 44th U.S. President’s right to order/execute an antiterrorist operation in Pakistan.
To continue, Barack Obama had the authority to initiate OG as it was planned as a kill-or-capture effort, so his intentions were in full accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). To violate their target’s human rights when it comes to targets in territories not belonging to the operation’s organizer, a special team should have effective control of this target (Bachman & Holland, 2019; Paust, 2011). According to the Obama Administration’s reports, the U.S. had no such control over Obama bin Laden when he was alive, so there were no human rights-related considerations to limit Obama’s decision-making power (Paust, 2011). Obama would have violated bin Laden’s rights if he had demanded a killing operation instead of the circumstances-based approach. In this case, the ICCPR protection against unjustified killing, for instance, being killed despite surrendering, would have come into play, limiting Obama’s power to proceed with such a decision (Paust, 2011). However, the plan approved by Obama accounted for two scenarios, such as the target’s readiness to surrender and his attempt to flee or attack the team.
Aside from OG’s formal legality within the frame of domestic law and no explicit conflict with international regulations, the operation’s plan contained directions to showcase cultural awareness and comply with Islamic burial law. The plan approved by Obama took around twelve hours to execute, resulting in conducting the sea burial ceremony with the target’s body within one day from the moment of death (Marks, 2019). Preceded with procedures to report the outcomes to President Obama, the burial met key funeral requirements specified in Islamic law (Marks, 2019). The 44th U.S. President’s commitment to incorporating religious law into the plan suggests strong devotion to acting as lawfully as possible during all stages, including ordering it.
Conclusively, the ex-President’s authority to order OG and proceed with its execution finds solid support in the country’s military self-defense directions accepted to prevent the repetition of 9/11. Crucial international frameworks, such as the UN Charter and human rights treaties, did not contain provisions that would be directly violated by Obama’s OG-related efforts, thus having no impact on his authority in this regard. Even the operation’s details, such as compliance with Islamic law and preventing the disrespectful treatment of the body, indicate the President’s commitment to exercising authority properly.
References
Bachman, J. S., & Holland, J. (2019). Lethal sterility: Innovative dehumanisation in legal justifications of Obama’s drone policy. The International Journal of Human Rights, 23(6), 1028-1047. Web.
Burns, S. (2021). Legalizing a political fight: Congressional abdication of war powers in the Bush and Obama administrations. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 51(3), 462-491. Web.
Marks, J. (2019). How SEAL Team Six took out Osama bin Laden. History. Web.
Paust, J. J. (2011). Permissible self-defense targeting and the death of Bin Laden. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 39(4), 569-583. Web.