Introduction
Terrorism is one of the major threats to the peace and well-being of individuals in the modern world. Radical military groups and organizations employ severe methods aimed at killing civilians to spread havoc and fear among people and attract attention to a particular issue. The terrorist act of September 11, 2001, organized by Osama bin Laden became a great tragedy that resulted in the war against terrorism proclaimed by the USA. The leader of al-Qaeda became the target number one for the U.S. military and justice systems. However, it is critical to emphasize the necessity of following existing domestic and international laws while struggling against terrorism; otherwise, governments will become similar to terrorist groups that disregard existing regulations. Thus, President Obama did not have the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and execute the plan, and it became a rude violation of international laws.
Background
Critical analysis of the events preceding this military operation will help to understand the context better. Bin Laden was one of the major theorists and initiators of the September 11 attacks. As a leader of al-Qaeda, he was responsible for organizing the terrorist act and its outcomes. As a result of this attack, 3,000 people died in the USA (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). Moreover, the “War on Terror” was initiated to respond to the growing terrorist threat (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). Bin Laden became the subject of an international search, and the USA devoted substantial resources to finding him (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). In such a way, the operation became a result of continuous attempts to punish a number one terrorist. For the USA, it was also a point of honor and a sign to others. For this reason, the operation was executed following Obama’s order. However, the major problem was the target’s location, as Bin Laden was found in Pakistan. It meant that the U.S. Army had to act on the territory of another state without its permission.
Domestic Laws
Thus, from the perspective of U.S. laws, the President had the legal authority to make this order. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Congress allowed the President of the state to use force against nations or organizations involved in terrorist acts (Savage, 2015). Furthermore, Obama’s administration appealed to international law enabling states to use force regarding the laws of war (Savage, 2015). Regarding the war on terror proclaimed by the USA as a response to terrorist attacks, the use of military force on the territory of other states was justified. The operation was successful as Osama Bin Laden was killed. The President emphasized the fact that killing the terrorist was legal and did not contradict the existing laws.
International Laws
However, from an international perspective, President Obama’s decision to send troops to another state violated one of the fundamental laws. The government of Pakistan was not asked for permission to use special action forces on its territories (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). Moreover, the USA did not plan to do it, viewing this operation as an act of self-defense and a part of the war on terrorism (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). In such a way, the unauthorized use of military force on the lands of another country is a rude violation of the existing legal paradigm and cannot be justified by the domestic laws accepted by the USA as a response to the September 11 attacks. Moreover, the introduction of troops on the territory of another state can be viewed as the proclamation of war, meaning that the USA contributed to the growth of tension in international relations.
In such a way, Obama’s decision to use troops on the territory of Pakistan created a legal precedent. The President’s administration appealed to the domestic laws and the U.S senate resolution to use force when needed. However, this decision cannot be applied to international regulations or replaced (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). Otherwise, there is a high risk of growing tension in international relations and the emergence of new disputable cases. The USA violated the existing regulations and invaded the territory of another state without any permission, which can also be viewed as a hostile act that demands a specific response (Ambos & Alkatout, 2012). Under these conditions, Obama’s decision to execute the military operation disregarded international laws. As a result, Pakistan became a country invaded by troops and experienced reputational damage.
Conclusion
Altogether, it is possible to conclude that President Obama did not have the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and to execute the plan. It became a rude violation of existing international laws and norms. His administration appealed to the domestic regulations and authorities given to the President by the Senate. However, they are not relevant regarding global cooperation, as any state has the right to border integrity. The Invasion of U.S. troops on the territory of Pakistan became a precedent and demonstrated the weakness of existing regulatory agencies unable to ensure observation of existing international laws. Although the operation was successful and Osama Bin Laden was assassinated, the given goal was achieved by violating laws, which is unacceptable as it makes governments similar to terrorist groups.
References
Ambos, K., & Alkatout, J. (2012). Has ‘justice been done’? The legality of Bin Laden’s killing under international law. Israel Law Review, 45(2), 341-366. Web.
Savage, C. (2015). How 4 federal lawyers paved the way to kill Osama bin Laden. The New York Times. Web.