On May 2, 2011, SEAL Team Six launched a raid on the presumable compound of Osama bin Laden, the infamous leader of the al-Qaeda terrorist group responsible for the 9/11 attacks. At night, two dozen SEAL troops infiltrated a fortified facility in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Bin Laden was quickly located and eliminated, and the SEALs obtained valuable intelligence on terrorist activities. The U.S. troops took no casualties except for a damaged helicopter that had to be destroyed. Collateral damage was mostly avoided — unfortunately, one woman was killed in a firefight. Less than forty minutes from the operation’s start, the SEAL team leader radioed in and confirmed success, saying: “For God and country — Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo” (Osborn & Lin, n.d.). Apparently, the SEALs code-named bin Laden after Chief Geronimo, a man who fiercely fought against the U.S. troops for many years. While such a historical parallel seems inappropriate, this should be considered the only significant controversy around Neptune Spear. From a legal perspective, President Obama had the right to put the plan of terminating bin Laden in motion. Neptune Spear was not an assassination; it was a lawful operation justified from legal and ethical perspectives.
The public could question killing bin Laden from the premises of human rights law. After all, bin Laden was a human, and it may seem logical that he should have been captured and trialed in court instead of getting shot on the spot. To some extent, this logic is correct when applied to certain terrorists. However, the scope of attacks and activities committed by bin Laden and al-Qaeda made him a target qualified for elimination. According to Dunlap Jr. (2019), the members of non-state terrorist groups engaged in continuous combat operations can be lawfully targeted and attacked as traditional combatants. In that regard, bin Laden coordinated an army of well-organized, fanatical militants who operated in the Middle East for years after 9/11. In addition, one should remember that one of the planes hijacked on 9/11 targeted the Pentagon, which can only be interpreted as a direct attack on the U.S. military. Therefore, bin Laden was much closer to a high-ranking officer of the enemy military than to an ordinary terrorist. Bin Laden’s active involvement in a prolonged armed conflict with the United States made him a legitimate target for retaliation.
In addition, one cannot consider the raid on bin Laden’s compound an assassination attempt. Moreover, killing bin Laden cannot be qualified as assassination even if the SEALs had direct orders to shoot al-Qaeda without making any attempts to capture him alive. There is a subtle yet significant difference between the assassination and killing of individual combatants. Assassination is an act of unlawfully killing private individuals for political purposes (Dunlap Jr., 2019). Meanwhile, bin Laden was a combatant, a leader of a terrorist group targeting U.S. military personnel in the Middle East. As a highly-ranked combatant, he remained a legitimate target for killing, except for killing in a “treacherous” manner (Dunlap Jr., 2019). If President Obama sanctioned the elimination of bin Laden in a covert manner, such as bribing one of his friends to poison the al-Qaeda leader, that would have been an unlawful deed. However, the U.S. President ordered a direct assault on bin Laden’s compound. The SEAL Team Six, a unit within the U.S. Navy command structure, carried out the raid. As such, Neptune Spear was not an assassination but a lawful military operation.
Nevertheless, one may still question the legality of Neptune Spear while admitting its nature as a lawful military action rather than a covert murder. In particular, the United States has not obtained permission for a cross-border raid from Pakistan. Moreover, President Obama and the U.S. government have not notified the Pakistani authorities, letting the SEAL operation commence in full secrecy (Dunlap Jr., 2019). On this occasion, President Obama relied on the legal concept of extra-territorial self-defense. If certain nations are unwilling or unable to prevent threats to Americans coming from their territory, the United States reserves the right to use force against such threats regardless of sovereignty (Dunlap Jr., 2019). While this concept may seem disrespectful to other nations, President Obama had a valid justification for applying it in the Neptune Spear case. The most wanted terrorist in the world was hiding in a large compound near a residential area (Osborn & Lin, n.d.). The Pakistani authorities were either incompetent or unwilling to notice a fortified facility, thus showing their inability to take action against bin Laden. Therefore, President Obama had to prioritize the safety of Americans and sanction the raid without Pakistani consent.
Lastly, operation Neptune Spear was criticized for resembling a bounty hunt which may seem an unethical and illegal approach to a military operation. For instance, Yale Law professor Stephen Carter criticized the $25 million reward incentive for information leading to bin Laden’s capture (Dunlap Jr., 2019). It is true that the Department of Defence Law of War Manual prohibits placing a price on the head of the enemies or offering a reward for enemies wanted dead or alive. However, the Manual does not prohibit offering rewards for information used by the combatants to conduct a military operation against the enemy combatants (Dunlap Jr., 2019). In that regard, even if the U.S. military intelligence incentivized the locals to help identify bin Laden’s hideout, that method was not unlawful. As the combatants on the U.S. side, the SEALs used intelligence from various sources to develop a plan of assault on bin Laden’s compound. In addition, the scope and the nature of bin Laden’s activities turned him into a legitimate target of military operations. Ultimately, the U.S. military succeeded in tracking and cornering bin Laden.
In summary, one can claim that President Obama followed all necessary legal procedures when he sanctioned operation Neptune Spear. Osama bin Laden was not an average religiously or politically motivated terrorist. Bin Laden turned Al-Qaeda into a well-organized and funded group of militants and continued to plan terrorist attacks from his secret compound. As such, he has become a figure comparable to a highly-ranked officer, a combatant engaged in a decade-long armed conflict with the U.S. military. In that regard, President Obama had legal justifications for taking military action against bin Laden. Instead of ordering a covert assassination, President Obama sanctioned a direct operation against the enemy facility. Consequently, the SEALs who infiltrated bin Laden’s compound had the right to engage him like any other enemy combatant. In the end, the only controversial decision taken during the Neptune Spear’s planning and execution was code naming Osama bin Laden after Geronimo, the man who fought to protect his land and his people.
References
Dunlap Jr., C. J. (2019). Yes, the raid that killed Osama bin Laden was lawful. Lawfire. Web.
Osborn, K., & Lin, H. (n.d.). The operation that took out Osama bin Laden. Military.com. Web.