Introduction
The former U.S. commander in chief President Obama, on April 29, 2011, authorized Operation Geronimo which culminated in the killing of Osama Bin Laden. According to reports, the executive order was preceded by in-depth consultations with the National Security Council (NSC), specifically on whether Osama was within the identified hideout. Similarly, there were discussions regarding how to undertake the operation – either to capture or kill. In the end, President Obama gave the order that led to the killing of Osama in an exercise dubbed Operation Geronimo. It is important to note that the news of Osama’s death brought a sense of relief to millions of Americans, especially those who were previously affected by the 9/11 attack instigated by AI Qaeda. However, several questions emerged regarding the legality of Operation Geronimo. This paper holds that President Obama had the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and to execute the plan because he was the commander in chief of the military and abided by the U.S. Laws of War and International Law, Rules of War, and the Geneva Convention.
Discussion
Firstly, the decision to authorize Operation Geronimo was justified by the U.S. Laws of War and International Law. Based on S.J. Resolution 23 of September 2001, the president has the full authority to use “all necessary and appropriate forces” against all the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks (Pearcy, 2018, P. 255). This made the AI Qaeda leaders the prime suspects and main targets. In essence, the military had the authority to use necessary forces to either capture or kill Osama bin Laden without violating any set Laws of War. However, when viewed through the lens of International Law, the U.S. forces did not have the authority to enter Pakistan legally. Similarly, it was largely impossible for the U.S. government to cooperate with Pakistan because it was believed that some officials within the Pakistani government were protecting bin Laden (Schaller, 2015). Therefore, it was concluded that the country was harboring the most notorious terrorist – the Obama legal team observed that Pakistan could not eliminate the threat on its own. While some countries criticized the U.S.’s military actions thereafter, the majority of the international community accepted the decision.
Secondly, the Rules of War demonstrate clearly that the President had the authority to order the operation. These rules include military necessity, proportionality, and distinction/ discrimination. On military necessity, “the forces may engage in conduct even when the action will result in destruction and harm” (Rosert and Sauer, 2019, p. 371). Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks which made him a legitimate target. Similarly, the rule of proportionality, also referred to as international humanitarian law, was utilized because the team was aware of the danger the members in the room presented. Finally, the rule of distinction or discrimination holds that no other person besides the main target can get hurt during armed conflict (Rosert and Sauer, 2019). The team followed this approach when they entered Osama’s bedroom. They only fired two shots – one in the head and the other in the chest of the target. According to Godlewska and Bernat (2021), the military team’s decision to shoot one of Osama’s wives was purely in self-defense. Therefore, as per the Rules of War, Operation Geronimo was fully justified.
Thirdly, by being the commander in chief of the military as explicated in the U.S. Constitution, President Obama had the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and to execute the plan. As the president, Obama had the main responsibility of protecting and, at the same time, defending the United States of America from any possible threats to national security. Osama bin Laden was a threat to national security because he was “involved in terrorist and evil operations that resulted in the loss of life and property in the United States and Worldwide” (Soherwordi and Khattak, 2020, p. 235). Simply put, bin Laden was in charge of all the operations undertaken by AI Qaeda. Obama’s role as explained in Article II, section 2 of the U.S Constitution is to be the commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States as well as of the militia of the different states. Therefore, since he had supreme authority over the military, he had the legal authority to send the United States Navy to complete the operation. In essence, the main aim of the operation was to maintain peace in the U.S. and around the globe because Osama was involved in the killing of many innocent people.
Lastly, President Obama was in authority to give the order as per the rules of the Geneva Convention and human rights. However, some opponents claim that the initial order was to kill bin Laden which makes it a predetermined murder. Osama was killed “outside the fight”– this rule of the Geneva Convention holds that “it is a war crime to kill the enemy unable to fight due to sickness or wounds or the one making a genuine offer to surrender (Bakhsh et al., 2019, p. 103). According to Brennan, the former counterterrorism advisor, the forces tried their level best to complete the mission without causing any harm, but bin Laden “was engaged and killed in the process” (Fisher and Becker, 2021, p. 324). Experts from the UN Human Rights Council acknowledge the use of force as the last option for protecting life. Many lives were protected from possible future harm as a result of Operation Geronimo. Most importantly, the killing of Osama was permissible under Article 51 of the U.N. charter – it allowed the U.S. to target the AI Qaeda leader in self-defense.
Conclusion
Overall, President Obama’s legal team worked hard, before and after Operation Geronimo, to ensure the U.S. military’s actions complied with the required laws and regulations. Immediately after the operation, questions were raised regarding whether or not President Obama had the legal authority to order the operation and execute the plan. However, there is hardly anyone who has challenged the military’s decision to kill Osama bin Laden. While this is the case, it is important to note that the decision to kill any human being must be within the law and for reasons that can easily be justified. This explains why Obama’s legal team took time to assess the military actions and ensure the operation is undertaken as per the Rules of War, the U.S Law of War, the International Law, and the Geneva Convention. The four administration lawyers’ main responsibility was to draft rationales that could help overcome any legal obstacles that might emerge after the operation. Although some legal scholars raised some questions, their concerns were muted after the operation was deemed successful.
References
Bakhsh, F., Fatima, S., & Bilal, M. (2019). The possibility of conciliation between international humanitarian law and Islamic law of war: A myth or reality?.Pakistan Journal of Islamic Research, 20(2), 143-199
Fisher, D., & Becker, M. H. (2021). The heterogeneous repercussions of killing Osama bin Laden on global terrorism patterns. European Journal of Criminology, 18(3), 301-324.
Godlewska, S., &Bernat, P. (2021). The exceptionalism of Osama bin Laden’s wives. Humanities and Social Sciences, 28(4), 19-29.
Pearcy, M. (2018). “Sixty words”: Teaching about the authorization for use of military force (AUMF). The Social Studies, 109(5), 255-264.
Rosert, E., & Sauer, F. (2019). Prohibiting autonomous weapons: Put human dignity first. Global Policy, 10(3), 370-375.
Soherwordi, S. H. S., & Khattak, S. A. (2020). Operation Geronimo: Assassination of Osama Bin Ladin and its implications on the US-Pakistan relations, War on Terror, Pakistan and Al-Qaeda. South Asian Studies, 26(2), 234-300
Schaller, C. (2015). Using force against terrorists ‘outside areas of active hostilities’—the Obama approach and the Bin Laden raid revisited. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 20(2), 195-227.