Introduction
Terrorist crimes encroach on the life and health of people, endanger the security of the entire State, disorganize the political situation, and disrupt stability in society. In this regard, various legal means are being created in the country to respond to acts of terrorism committed, the purpose of which is the application by the State of measures of adequate influence against criminals, the creation of a system of State guarantees for victims and ensuring the safety of the population. The problem of anti-terrorist protection of the population, as well as objects of special importance and life support from terrorist attacks, is relevant both for the United States as a whole and for the whole world. Therefore, it can be argued that President Obama had legal authority for Operation Geronimo due to the fact that it prevented the commission of further terrorist attacks with many human victims, including on the territory of the United States.
Discussion
By order of the US president, American special forces invaded the territory of a foreign state. The leadership of the United States — including President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton – watched the operation to destroy terrorist Osama bin Laden in real-time via video for forty minutes. This was made possible thanks to a small camera mounted on the helmet of one of the American special forces. The Navy seals, who were rehearsing the operation in a specially built replica of the Abbottabad mansion, found the founder of the terrorist network in the bedroom (Krishna, 2019). Obama gave instructions, and a bullet hit in the left eye ended Osama’s life. At the same time, the command given by Obama can be considered legitimate.
A counterterrorist operation is a special legal operation that is established in any locality where a counterterrorist operation is carried out. It is introduced to prevent or disclose a terrorist act or acts, as well as to minimize the consequences of these illegal acts. Therefore, the invasion of the United States for this purpose under the leadership of Obama on the territory of another country can be considered legitimate. Therefore, the counter-terrorism operation was not of a local scale, but very large, that is, it required large resources and took place on the territory of another state, according to the regulations, the Government of Pakistan was notified about its conduct (Smith & Barrett, 2018). The decision to end the counter-terrorism operation was announced when the criminal was eliminated. At the same time, nothing threatened the life and health of citizens of a foreign state, their interests, and property. Thus, the actions of Barack Obama to conduct a counter-terrorism operation on the territory of another state were legal.
The circumstances connected with violence, interethnic conflicts, and authorizing Geronimo’s counter-terrorist operation were a real threat to the life and security of citizens, and the normal activities of state institutions. The need for counter-terrorism operation Geronimo was determined by the degree of danger of terrorist threats, and the involvement of a significant number of people using violent means and methods. Taking into account the need to implement coordinated state measures in the context of Osama bin Laden’s activities, a special place was given to the consistency and improvement of the necessary measures to combat terrorist crimes (Fishman, 2019). In this regard, the implementation of the current legislation by Barack Obama, aimed at preventing or reducing the likelihood of terrorist manifestations, is inextricably linked with the interests of the people.
According to the law on Countering terrorism, taking the life of a person committing a terrorist act, as well as harming the health or property of such a person or other legally protected interests of an individual, society, or the state when suppressing a terrorist act or carrying out other measures to combat terrorism by actions prescribed or permitted by U.S. law, are lawful (Mustafa et al., 2020). In this situation with the Geronimo operation, the conditions under which public authorities can cause harm are clearly traced.
Although Osama bin Laden was not caught committing a terrorist act, his murder was carried out in order to prevent a planned terrorist act, which was known thanks to the intelligence service. The Law on Countering Terrorism clearly reveals the concept of combating terrorism. This is the identification, prevention, suppression, disclosure, and investigation of a terrorist act. It follows from this that State authorities may cause harm when countering terrorism in the course of activities directly related to a terrorist act (Mustafa et al., 2020). This circumstance, on the basis of the law, gave Obama, as an authorized person, a decision to conduct a Geronimo counter-terrorism operation, during which it was possible to use military equipment, weapons, and special means in order to eliminate the threat represented by Osama bin Laden.
The objectives of the counter-terrorist operation are defined in the law as the suppression of a terrorist act, the neutralization of terrorists, ensuring the safety of individuals, organizations, and institutions, or minimizing or eliminating the consequences of manifestations of terrorism. Geronimo’s operation met these criteria, so its very conduct and course meet the adopted legislation. During the Geronimo operation, the state authorities had sufficient information about the involvement of Osama bin Laden in an upcoming or committed terrorist act, and such an understanding was abstract, and was not based on guesses and assumptions (Roy et al., 2022). Therefore, the actions carried out by Obama as part of the elimination of Osama bin Laden can be regarded as legitimate.
It should be noted that the terrorist Osama bin Laden is primarily a criminal. Therefore, the possibility of lawful harm extends to the activities of persons involved in the fight against terrorism. It makes it possible, within the norms of criminal law, to cause harm during the detention of a person who has committed a crime, in the case of execution of an order or order, which is recognized as circumstances precluding the criminality of the act (Mustafa et al., 2020). In the case of Operation Geronimo, harming Osama bin Laden can be considered a necessary defense and a necessity as a suppression of an attack and other active actions on the part of the criminal. Therefore, the attack on the special services within the framework of Operation Geronimo, by its legal nature, should be attributed to a measure of procedural coercion. It can be considered as the detention of a suspect, the grounds and procedure of which are regulated by the Criminal Code. This proves that President Obama has had legal authority for Operation Geronimo.
Conclusion
Obama’s command to bring justice to Osama bin Laden as part of Operation Geronimo, which imposed the death penalty, caused a mixed reaction. Guided by the principle of the inadmissibility of political concessions, the anti-terrorist strategy today is aimed at the unconditional destruction of persons suspected of terrorism, and thoughts about detaining criminals and bringing them to justice are unacceptable. The deprivation of the life of Osama bin Laden accused of terrorism during Operation Geronimo was used to prevent a terrorist act, therefore President Obama had legal authority for Operation Geronimo.
References
Fishman, B. (2019). Crossroads: Counter-terrorism and the internet. Texas National Security Review, 2(2), 82–100.
Krishna, S. (2019). Manhunt Presidency: Obama, race, and the third world. Third World Quarterly, 9(1), 1–14.
Mustafa, D. G., Ali, N., Siddiqui, D. S., & Shah, Y. F. (2020). Historical analysis of Pakistan’s relations with United States of America under Obama’s administration. Journal of Historical Studies, 6(1), 119–242.
Roy, M. I., Khalid, A., Rehman, A., & Khalid, F. (2022). Operation Neptune Spear and the Manhunt (implications for Pakistan United States counter terrorism synergism 2001-2020). Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103–108. (2019). Classroom interaction research: The state of the art. Journal of Political Studies, 29(2), 39–50.
Smith, N., & Barrett, E. C. (2018). Psychology, extreme environments, and counter-terrorism operations. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 11(1), 48–72.