Neptune’s Spear operation, commonly called Geronimo, was carried out in 2011 under President Barrack Obama’s order to kill the Al Qaeda leader, a notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and other colleagues called out sophisticated, thorough, and detailed activities leading to the success of this operation. The Central Intelligence Agency, in this operation, discovered where Osama bin Laden was hiding. Neptune’s Spear involved two experienced U.S. Navy SEALs teams sent to conduct the operation in Pakistan and apprehend or assassinate Osama. Osama bin Laden and his group Al Qaeda were a threat to the United States and global security and a notorious and smart terrorist who had arranged for various attacks in the United States and other countries where the main target was U.S. ambassadorial offices. One of the attacks associated with the Al Qaeda group that Osama bin Landen led was the World Trade Center attack. In the United States constitution, murdering any unarmed person was prohibited, and President Obama’s decision to sanction Neptune’s Spear operation was a hard task. Consequently, the current global policy regarding the killing of Osama has raised various issues. This paper aims to determine whether President Obama had the legal power and authority to execute Geronimo or Neptune’s Spear operation in 2011.
Many groups, people, and advocates doubt the authority of former U.S. President Obama for the arrest and murder of Osama. The killing of Osama under the order of Obama provoked varied reactions from different people and groups. Some people claim that the operation was legal and justified. At the same time, another group argues that Neptune’s Spear operation was unjustified and that Obama had no legal to execute the so-called operation. According to Obama, the operation was conducted as an act of the U.S. (Roy et al., 2022)—a national self-dense to protect its land and citizens. President Barrack Obama had formal authority and power to authorize and carry Neptune’s Spear operation. The approach by the administration of the form of U.S. President Obama to justify any counterterrorism attacks and operations typically on another state’s territory was based on mixed and various arguments heavily drawn from armed conflict law and self-defense law. The United States was trying to protect its people and land from Al Qaeda attacks and terrorist activities led by Osama. In Osama’s case, the former U.S. President acted under the country’s self-defense entitlement.
Osama Bin Laden led his Al Qaeda terrorism team during the severe 9-11 U.S. terrorist attacks and claimed to be the person responsible for them. These attacks made Osama a high-target terrorist for the United States as he threatened U.S. national security. After the attacks of 9-11, Osama and his Al Qaeda team attempted several other attacks on the United States. This made Osama one of the most wanted terrorists of the time. Any person who would successfully direct on his whereabouts leading to arrest would be awarded by the United States government (Govern, 2012). The attack on the hideout and residents of Osama bin Laden was a fair and justified use of power by President Obama since he acted for the common good of United States citizens and the country’s protection and global security.
Various criticisms surround the operational legality of Neptune’s Spear operation. Some are based on President Reagan’s executive order stating that no U.S. person acting on the government’s behalf or under employment will plan and participate in killing and assassination (Schaller, 2015). However, as per Wachtel, Reagan’s order contextually did not describe the so-called assassination, and therefore Obama’s operation considering the same interpretation, was not perceived as wrong and illegal (Wachtel, 2015). The attack was not more of assassination but based on self-defense and attempts to guarantee national security.
The U.S. Congress, after the 9-11 Al Qaeda terrorist attacks, authorized counterterrorism attacks and the use of U.S. Military Force-based resolutions for national security, permitting the U.S. commander-in-chief to utilize appropriate force to counter individuals and firms that supported that attack. The execution by form U.S. President Obama for Neptune’s Spear operation was justifiable under domestic laws and policy of the country. The U.S. Congress would not allow any person to undermine the country’s national security and, therefore, would allow such an attack. President Barrack Obama also got global authorization and power to attack Al Qaeda and his leader Osama from NATO and United Nations (Schaller, 2015). This authority relied heavily on intrinsic self-defense right, an international principle under United Nations Charter in Article fifty-one (Wachtel, 2015). Former United States Presidents, including George Bush, authorized similar operations to Neptune’s Spear operation for the arrest of Osama. Following the same authorization criteria, George Bush tried to arrest Osama to no avail, which was done successfully during the reign of President Obama.
The conclusion of Obama’s execution for the operation followed consultation with four well-known and experienced lawyers, including Stephen Preston. Around a week before Obama’s order for the operation, the four U.S. administration lawyers developed a good rationale for overcoming any legal obstacle against the operation. The set rationale would make it possible for the U.S. Navy SEALs to murder Al Qaeda’s fugitive leader, Osama bin Laden and typically not arrest him (Savage, 2015). These lawyers drafted around five good secret memos for them to be passed. The four government lawyers did a great job shaping, uncovering all legal issues, and justifying the operation. Attorneys did their assessment of national and internal law and allowed the operation, and this means the attack on Osama was lawful and legal and was not in conflict with the law (Savage, 2015). The operation was guided by protection law for the land and citizens of a county.
Some allegation emerged that the United States violated Pakistan’s sovereignty when Osama bin Laden’s home and hideout was raided without involving Pakistan’s local authorities. The respect for all territorial sovereignty is emphasized in United Nations Charter, and all nations should respect it. Nevertheless, on the other hand, the United Nations Charter and Article 51 provide legal and lawful freedom and rationale for countries like the United States to attack their enemies as a means of self-defense and defending national security (Schaller, 2015). Breach of territorial sovereignty is allowed since the attack is made to attain national and international security. President Obama, by authorizing the Geronimo, was within the respect of international laws.
As their laws stated, the U.S. President was required to notify and give an alarm to the U.S. Congress before carrying out the operation. Former President Obama adhered to it. Neptune’s Spear operation was one method to implement the objectives of the U.S. military against all terrorist groups threatening U.S. security on global and countries’ behalf. Therefore, Obama had a lawful authority to implement duty forces and determine whether using U.S. military force to counter Osama and Al Qaeda was desirable. Obama had to determine whether executing the operation was in line with the principles of the U.S. military, such as proportionality, necessity, and distinction (Wallace, 2012). The operation complied with U.S. military policies. For example, Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda group had declared to be targeting the U.S.; therefore, eliminating him was for martial-action-related reasons (Savage, 2015). The principle of martial necessity was typically met since engaging Osama was a crucial security reason. It is always necessary to use military force when national security is under threat from foreign terrorists (Wallace, 2012). Since Osama had launched some attacks against the U.S. and had the plan to conduct more terrorist attacks, the country had to use military force and protect its land and people. President Obama had the legal authority to launch the operation by meeting military principles.
Generally, former U.S. President Barrack Obama possessed legal authority in the execution and order of Neptune’s Spear operation. Where armed conflict or war is absent, murdering somebody under legal and moral law would be permitted for safety and self-defense. However, some think this operation broke international law concerning the territorial borders of other countries like Pakistan. However, the U.S. did not necessarily disrespect Pakistan’s territories since the attack was made for self-defense and protection for national security as allowed in United Nations Charter in Article fifty-one. In any attack event or operation, countries have the right to self-defense. Neptune’s Spear was done to protect U.S. citizens against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda group since it had declared war on the country. President Obama had a legal mandate to protect the country against any terrorist attack and other insecurity threats and act in the best interest of U.S. citizens.
References
Govern, K. H. (2012). Operation Neptune Spear: Was Killing Bin Laden a Legitimate Military Objective? Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, pp. 347–373. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=President+Obama+had+the+legal+authority+to+order+and+execute+Operation+Neptune%27s+Spear&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2012&as_yhi=2023
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). Journal of Political Studies, 29(2). http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/pols/pdf-files/4-v29_2_2022.pdf
Savage, C. (2015). How 4 federal lawyers paved the way to kill Osama bin Laden (Published 2015). The New York Times – Breaking News, U.S. News, World News, and Videos. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/politics/obama-legal-authorization-osama-bin-laden-raid.html
Schaller, C. (2015). Using force against terrorists ‘outside areas of active hostilities’—the Obama approach and the Bin Laden raid revisited. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 20(2), 195–227. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/kru022
Wachtel, H. (2015). Targeting Osama bin Laden: Examining the legality of assassination as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. Duke Law Journal, 55(677), 680–693. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol55/iss3/5
Wallace, D. (2012). Operation Neptune’s Spear: The Lawful Killing of Osama Bin Laden. Israel Law Review, 45(2), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223712000118
write