Introduction
For quite a long time, Osama bin Laden remained at large despite the vast number of charges against him. Even 25 million dollars for information about the whereabouts of the terrorist did not go to anyone. Many authorities, including American forces and the Pakistani CIA, worked on the capture. Tracking down the target was possible thanks to US intelligence analysts who followed Bin Laden’s couriers and went to a house in Abbottabad, Pakistan, which was well enough protected to arouse suspicion. At the same time, there was no clear and exhaustive evidence that the terrorist was located there, in connection with which Barack Obama, organizing the operation, took a considerable risk.
Neptune Spear is the code name for an operation authorized by President Obama on May 2, 2011, by a special unit called DEVGRU to assassinate an al-Qaeda leader. Following that, Barack Obama gave a speech that sparked a global uproar. While much of the public reaction to Geronimo’s operation was positive, many legal questions remained about the process. Al-Qaeda issued a statement announcing the death of its leader four days later.
There are three reasons why this move by Barack Obama is more damaging. First, al-Qaeda, led by bin Laden, has carried out more than twenty major terrorist attacks to date, but the suppression of crimes has also been violent (Byman & Mir, 2022). Secondly, from an emotional point of view, this organization remained unpunished after the terrorist attack with the collapse of the Twin Towers in 2001, and the population has demanded a severe response from the government ever since, which is also justification for violence at the social level. Finally, there was evidence that bin Laden was planning a powerful new attack ten years after 9/11 and needed to be prevented; however, there is no confirmation of this fact, and it looks like a fictitious one (Pfarrer, 2011).
To assess the operation’s performance and the execution of the plan by the then-incumbent president, it is necessary to turn to the US and international law. For the most part, it can be assumed that Obama did not have the legal authority to conduct such a covert operation due to the justification of violence, international judicial law, and the ability to kill the perpetrator without trial in a foreign country.
Domestic Legislation
This operation could be considered a crime without relevant regulations and other international and domestic law aspects. However, after the terrorist attacks that led to the fall of the Twin Towers in 2001, the US Congress passed the resolution “Permission to use military force against terrorists”, giving the authority to the government of the country and in particular, the president to use force against accomplices (Searcey, 2011). It was this resolution that the Obama administration referred to in justifying the Geronimo process.
The choice of the method of conducting a special operation should not primarily affect the civilian population, and this aspect was decisive in the construction of the plan. However, the secrecy of the operation created corresponding risks, given that the Pakistani government was not informed. In the process of preparation, such options as a massive airstrike, the implementation of a drone for reasons of danger to the civilian population and the belief that the target was chosen correctly were excluded. Such a task to kill if not capture, already bore the negative character of justifying violence. The operation organizers had no choice but to choose the riskiest option – a ground operation by a special forces detachment.
On the other hand, there was the fact that in 1998, bin Laden was indicted in the United States District Court of Manhattan. By law, the accused must be detained and brought to trial. However, after the operation, many governments and the media questioned whether the order was to kill or take alive (Pfarrer, 2011). No one has made any legal claims against Obama within the country. However, there was no legal basis for the President to go against his country’s judiciary, regardless of the order given.
Moreover, although the news was positively received by the population, some opinions raised quite adequate questions. Dissatisfaction was caused by the lack of direct evidence of the murder of a terrorist, although the confirmation of the group, as well as a number of legislative motives and a secret form of burial led to a polarization of opinions. Although each participant was not supposed to go into detail about the work of the special forces group, various aspects of the operation began to leak to the press. However, this reflects individual responsibility, which had no consequences for the participants.
It cannot be said that the lack of responsibility justifies such actions within the framework of the law. The resolution did not have significantly greater legal force than the judiciary, but something else is noteworthy. Except for several activists, no one drew attention to the legal basis of this operation; most discussed the social, political, and even religious consequences. Nevertheless, in this way, an act of justification of violence took place in the country, multiplying evil: the United States responded to such acts of terrorists similarly.
International Law
The sharpest reaction was caused by Pakistan, where the operation took place. Pakistan’s partnership in fighting terrorism was questioned as the terrorist was located in their territory (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). The first reaction was to accuse the US of unauthorized actions and violation of the country’s sovereignty. There was information that the Pakistani government was involved with al-Qaeda, but the suspicions were not groundless: despite the efforts of American intelligence, Bin Laden was at large for a long time. However, the answer was not long in coming. The law enshrined in the UN allowed for foreign intervention in the form of an operation with the use of force on the territory of another country in the event that this party did not have the ability or ability to solve the problem on its own (Searchey, 2011). However in this case, appropriate permission from Pakistan was required. Nevertheless, opinions around the world are polarized.
According to the official version, bin Laden was unarmed but was killed for resisting. This presentation of events did not suit human rights activists. Claudio Cordone, senior director of Amnesty International, said it was unclear how bin Laden could resist without weapons. In his opinion, the military should have taken the terrorist alive and brought him to justice (Bowcott, 2011). Years later, Bissonnet and O’Neill told the media that al-Qaeda leader was not trying to defend himself. Relevant human rights organizations found this statement shocking, which tipped the scales more towards the need for a live terrorist trial than the actions of the American security forces.
Consequently, the majority agreed that the killing during the operation was an act of self-defense, even though conclusive evidence was never forthcoming. The United States has called for more facts about the case and investigation to be revealed to assess the operation’s legitimacy under international humanitarian law. However, there was an opinion that the operation was an extrajudicial execution without due process of law (Bowcott, 2011). The issue of the dilemma of the secrecy of the task and informing organizations interested in the fight against terrorism is raised. Obama is being challenged with an uncoordinated, secret, and short-term solution, a kind of intervention in Pakistan. For the most part, the operation is justified by ensuring international security, and although there is some common sense in this statement, most complaints are made about its form rather than motives.
Conclusion
Barack Obama’s responsibility for the implementation of the Neptune Spear operation plan was not justified within the country and aroused agreement only in the context of social and emotional support for the population, including abroad, despite the resonances in the media, more related to the consequences and the process of the act than to reasons. Although the accusations were primarily oral and aimed at asking more light on the investigation and the path that led to this decision, many legislative questions about the domestic judiciary, the strength of the resolution, the operation in the territory of another country, and the justification for the violence remained open.
The secrecy of the operation preparation allowed the United States to carry it out successfully and without losses. Most of the claims rested on recognition as an act of self-defense, but later the facts that surfaced showed that Bin Laden was unarmed and offered no resistance. Barack Obama and the U.S. government have not received a formal legal charge to this day despite not having the legal authority to carry out Geronimo.
References
Bowcott O. (2011) Osama bin Laden: US responds to questions about killing’s legality. The Guardian. Web.
Byman, D., & Mir, A. (2022). How strong is Al-Qaeda? A debate. War on the Rocks. Web.
Pfarrer, C. (2011). SEAL Target Geronimo: The inside story of the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. St. Martin’s Press.
Searcey, D. (2011) Killing Was Legal Under U.S. and International Law, Many Experts Say. The Wall Street Journal. Web.
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). Web.