Introduction
When news broke that Osama bin Laden had been killed in a raid by the United States Navy Seals (Seal Team Six), it prompted a wide range of responses, from spontaneous expressions of joy to intense questions about the legality of the operation. Former President Barack Obama had given the go-ahead to carry out operation Geronimo, also known as Operation Neptune Spear, in the lead-up to the strike. Regrettably, the inconsistency in the tangible examples and the shallow legal foundation supplied by Obama administration officials have shown to be inadequate to answer such complex concerns. Nevertheless, the discussion of executive branch legitimacy with regards to international regulations demonstrate the validity of operation and Obama’s authority to execute it.
Executive Branch Authority
Various legal experts have disagreed on the legitimacy of operation Geronimo and the following 2 May 2011 invasion and assassination of Osama bin Laden. Because there was no state of war between the United States and the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization, Ambos and Alkatout (2012, p. 341) wrote that Obama’s authorization of Operation Geronimo was illegal under both domestic and international law. The authors argue that the operation may have been legitimate if Osama had continued to engage in hostile operations against the United States (Ambos and Alkatout, 2012). The academics later declared the operation illegal, saying it had broken international law by violating Pakistan’s sovereignty over its territory. After some time, this is dependent on the observance of the right to self-defense as stated in “Article 51 of the United Nations charter,” particularly in light of the need for prompt action (Ambos and Alkatout, 2012).
This research, however, disproves any claims that the operation was unlawful since it notes that the targeted strike on Osama’s home was authorized under both U.S. and international law. According to Article 2, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, the President of the United States is the head of the armed forces and acts as its commander in chief (CIC). Obama was within his legal rights to approve and carry out the operation under the authorization to use military force contained in the 18 September law. Under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the assault did not constitute an extrajudicial killing without due process or a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. Due to the continued danger posed by Al Qaeda fanatic bin Laden, the use of deadly force was deemed constitutional as an act of national self-defense under the Constitution.
Legitimacy of Procedure
The U.S. Navy Seals’ decision to shoot and kill Osama bin Laden did not break any international humanitarian or military law. Since bin Laden was the leader of a terrorist organization (al-Qaeda), he remained an enemy soldier. The Seals were within their legal and ethical rights to kill him if they saw a credible danger. Since the early 1990s, American intelligence agencies have been trying to track down Osama bin Laden. The administrations of Clinton, Bush, and Obama had warrants out for his arrest and death due to his high status within Al Qaeda, a well-organized and feared network of extremists. Therefore, the operation was perfectly legal and notable regardless of whether the instructions were to capture or kill Osama.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) restricts its application to conflicts of sufficient size and force to warrant treatment under a legal war framework. Hence the government cannot use it to prosecute all terrorist acts (Fleck, 2021). International human rights law is a legal concept used to enforce other laws and protect the rights of people worldwide, including terrorist extremists. This legislation is most often understood to authorize the targeting of non-state terrorists in the same manner as conventional military personnel. This demonstrates that non-state terrorists may be attacked worldwide (Fleck, 2021).
International Involvement
The United States took action based on the legal approach it implemented to nations deemed incapable or unwilling to help identify and remove opponents who posed a significant threat to the United States of America (Holbrook, 2018). It is because of the debate about why Pakistan needed to be formally informed of the intended operation. President Obama has given the green light to proceed with the operation despite objections from Pakistan because it would violate Pakistani sovereignty. Primarily, the driving force motivating the act were the citizens who were outraged by the existence of the threat that destroyed norms of American lives. Also, with the current status of terrorist organizations in Pakistan, informing the government would be risky because of the high likelihood that someone in the government would leak the mission’s details to the target.
Conclusion
To sum up, the legitimacy of President Obama’s authorization and subsequent execution of operation Geronimo is confirmed by the cross-border operation and armed conflict legislation. Since Osama was still a wanted criminal and a high-ranking terrorist who posed a significant danger to American civilians when he was eliminated. In addition, the United States did not violate Pakistan’s sovereignty due to the country’s inadequate cooperation with American authorities. Therefore, after weighing the evidence presented, it is evident that President Obama’s authorization and execution of Neptune Spear were lawful under both U.S. and international law.
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.
Fleck, D. (Ed.). (2021). The handbook of international humanitarian law. Oxford University Press.
Holbrook, D. (2018). Al-Qaeda: Formation and evolution. In A. Silke (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Terrorism and Counterterrorism, (pp. 267- 277), Routledge