The U.S. military forces conducted operation Geronimo, which aimed to kill Osama bin Laden, under authorization from President Obama. Despite bringing relief to many people worldwide due to a hard blow against Al Qaeda, the operation authorization raises many concerns regarding its legal context. Firstly, there are constraints put by the U.S. Constitution on activities such as assassination. Secondly, there is a question of breaking the territorial integrity and independence of a foreign state by the U.S. forces. Finally, the internationally accepted laws and conventions bring additional complexity to the case. Nevertheless, the peculiarities surrounding the mentioned concerns can prove that President Obama had the legal authority to order the operation.
By default, the U.S. Constitution does not permit assassination. However, legislation after September 11, 2001, events has allowed reinterpreting the assassination ban significantly. On September 14, 2001, the House and the Senate passed joint resolutions – S.J. Resolution 23 and H.J. Resolution 64 – that authorized the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against entities involved in the attack in order to prevent such attacks in the future (107th Congress 2001a; 2001b). In other words, Pentagon has encouraged counterterrorism activities, including targeted killing, on the condition of maintaining legal oversight authority over them (107th Congress 2001a; 2001b). Bin Laden’s targeted killing falls into this category, and all intelligence collection, dissemination, and operation conduct included a written “finding” and were subject to Congressional oversight to comply with U.S. Federal law.
Regarding other concerns about the operation’s legitimacy, one might consider illegal the use of force against the political independence and territorial integrity of Pakistan, a foreign state. However, leaked revelations can rebut this opinion with claims by retired U.S. and Pakistani officials that imply a secret deal between the countries. The agreed terms were that Pakistan would permit U.S. forces to conduct a raid inside Pakistan to search for bin Laden and several other individuals connected to the Al Qaeda terroristic organization (Immunity for Musharraf, 2008). Such an agreement is consistent with Pakistan’s unspoken policy regarding CIA drone strikes uncovered by the WikiLeaks U.S. embassy cables. Notably, amongst other messages, it contained the Pakistani Prime Minister’s words: “I don’t care if they do it, as long as they get the right people. We’ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it” (Immunity for Musharraf, 2008, para. 11). In this context, the figure of bin Laden was deemed too dangerous to hinder the operation.
The last concern of operation authorization refers to international humanitarian law (IHL). Mainly, it restricts warfare methods and protects people from participating in hostilities, implying that bin Laden was to be captured if he surrendered (ICRC, 2004). However, IHL does not imply that soldiers are obliged to give an opportunity to surrender during the conflict. The suggestion that they are under such an obligation would mean that the operation falls under the framework of a domestic arrest analogical to police officers’ demand to “freeze,” which is definitely not the case in this situation. Additionally, no evidence of operatives conducting the execution against IHL obligations was found. Finally, directly denying the opportunity to surrender and issuing an order to deny this opportunity prove to be utterly different. The latter would have instantly made the operation illegal in terms of IHL; however, there is no evidence of that happening as well.
Considering the peculiarities associated with each mentioned legal concern, it becomes clear that operation Geronimo is within the legal framework. In terms of the U.S. Constitution, the issue can be explained by special regulations passed by the U.S. Congress. Regarding the foreign state territorial integrity, Al Qaeda as a non-state organization proved to be a more pressing concern. Finally, obligations imposed by IHL work under specific conditions that were not met in the given case. Therefore, President Obama had the legal right to authorize the operation.
References
107th Congress. (2001a). S. J. Res. 23: Joint resolution. GovInfo. Web.
107th Congress. (2001b). H.J.Res.64 – Authorization for use of military force. Library of Congress. Web.
Immunity for Musharraf likely after Zardari’s election as president. (2008). Public Library of US Diplomacy. Web.
ICRC. (2004).What is international humanitarian law? International Committee of the Red Cross. Web.