In 2011, President Barack Obama authorized operation Geronimo aimed at eliminating Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. The success of the operation was due to the combined efforts of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the armed forces. Previously, all efforts to arrest the culprit had tremendously failed and any opportunity that would make it possible had to be taken. Legal debates question whether the operation was legal and whether President Obama had the legal authority to order the operation and to execute the plan. When a country deliberates on the use of force to eliminate a terrorist, the force should execute within legal structures and with the legal authority. The principle of proportionality, military necessity and discrimination/distinction were satisfied which is proof that the plan was executed legally. By clearly analyzing the Geronimo operation process, it is possible to conclude that the execution was lawful and President Obama had the authority to order the operation Geronimo and execute the plan.
The operation was an expression of the nation’s legal right to self-defense. The Congress in 2001 authorized the president at that time to use force against individuals who had invaded an attack in the United States. Under the U.S. constitutional scheme, the Commander-in-chief can order the National Command Authority to employ force against the Al Qaeda which includes Osama. Supplementary international authorizations were also offered by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the UN (David, 2011). The use of force to invade Osama’s premises was an international basic principle that provides nations with a right to self-defense under article fifty-one (51) of the United Nations Charter. Osama was a threat to the United States.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The force used by the Special Forces was in line with the three major principles. The law requires that the force used is proportional, distinctive and with military necessity. Bin Laden had been a threat to the United States. Osama had threatened to execute everyone they captured if Khalid Mohamed (who had confessed to having been involved in the 9/11 attacks) was killed (Bergen, Hoffman, & Tiedemann, 2011). He had also said that Obama, just like his predecessor, George Bush, was practicing injustice by supporting Israel’s occupation of Palestine. In his last audio, Osama confessed that he was responsible for the alleged airline attack and swore to continue with the attacks unless Obama took resolved the Palestinian scandal (Bergen et al., 2011). Looking at the facts, Bin Laden had proved hostile and it was, therefore, necessary to use the military to arrest or eliminate the culprit in an attempt to end global terrorism and to further the international community’s military objectives. The first principle of military necessity was therefore satisfied.
The force employed should be proportional to the identified threat. The number of Special Forces who entered Osama’s bedroom could be perceived high and with excessive force. However, the number of people who accompanied him in that room equaled the force applied. Additionally, Bin Laden wasn’t ready to surrender and he was always armed with all sorts of weapons (David, 2011). Bin Laden would probably have killed the members of the Forces had they not been many and organized. Thus, the use of special armed Forces to engage the target could be considered proportional to the threat Laden posed to the Forces which satisfied the proportionality principle.
The third principle that had to be satisfied was distinction/ discrimination. The force used should be discriminate with the culprit distinctly engaged. It implies that the Forces are only supposed to aim at the intended target without hurting anyone protected by the law including children. Except in cases of self-defense, intentional killing of the civilians is unauthorized (David, 2011). The Forces aimed at Osama’s chest and head and it only took two accurate shots to kill the target. The force used was thus discriminate to the target. According to the information produced by Obama and his administration, the alleged killing of Laden’s wife was a case of self-defense (David, 2011). Other individuals in the compound such as children were protected and hostile people who fired to the Forces were minimally engaged. None of the civilians was targeted intentionally thus satisfied the principle of discrimination/ distinction was satisfied.
The president has the legal authority to use military force as outlined by the constitution. The power to conduct or declare war is divided between the executive and the legislature. As established in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president is the commander-in-chief of the military and has the authority to lead the forces (Ken, 2014). Article I gives the congress authority to raise military forces, maintain them and authority to declare war. While Congress decides on whether or not to fight, the president manages the authorized fight. The president has the power to use military force without involving the congress but the war cannot last for more than sixty days (Ken, 2014). By the powers vested to him by the constitution, President Obama had the legal authority to order the Geronimo operation and to execute the actual plan.
The main objective of the operation was to arrest the target rather than to kill. The constitution clearly outlines that if a person surrenders by putting up their hands, they should be captured and not shot. The CIA director said that if Osama had not shown any threat, he would have been captured (Alan, 2011). However, many armed persons in the compound fired the Special Forces. Osama was armed and ready to offer resistance which led to his killing. The execution of the operation plan was therefore legal and not questionable.
The continuous debates on whether or not President Obama had the legal authority to order the Geronimo operation and execution plan can be answered by close analysis of legal facts done in this paper. Osama Bin Laden had been involved in several terror attacks in the USA and had vowed to continue with the attacks if the Palestinian situation was not addressed. He had proven to be hostile and posed a great threat to the residents of the nation. The operation to capture/ kill Laden was a self-defense right provided by article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The operation followed the principle of military necessity, discrimination/distinction, and proportionality which is proof that legal procedures were taken into account. The constitution of the U.S. establishes the president as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and has the authority to lead the forces and to declare war; this gave president Obama the legal authority to plan and execute the Geronimo operation. The operation plan was executed according to the legal guidelines in the constitution. Having outlined all the basic legal facts, President Obama had the legal authority to order operation Geronimo and to execute the plan.
References
Alan Silverleib (2011). The killing of bin Laden: Was it legal? CNN Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/04/bin.laden.legal/index.html Accessed on 1 September, 2019
Bergen, P., Hoffman, B., & Tiedemann, K. (2011). Assessing the jihadist terrorist threat to America and American interests. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism , 34 (2), 65-101.
David Crane (2011). Legal Arithmetic: Adding up the Legality of Operation Geronimo . Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism (INSCT). Retrieved from http://insct.syr.edu/legal-arithmetic-adding-up-the-legality-of-operation-geronimo/ Accessed on 1 September, 2019
Ken Gude (2014). Understanding Authorizations for the Use of Military Force. Centers for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2014/09/24/97748/understanding-authorizations-for-the-use-of-military-force/ Accessed on 1 September 2019
