President Obama had the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and to execute the plan.

President Obama had the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and to execute the plan.

 

President Barack Obama caught many Americans and, indeed, the rest of the world by surprise on May 1, 2011, when he announced that the US SEALS conducted a successful operation that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. The planning and execution of the operation (Operation Geronimo) took place in a highly secretive environment with few people, including those serving as top advisors to the president, knowing of its planning and execution. Similarly, many countries, including those considered allies of the USA and even Pakistan, where the operation did not know of the operation’s conduct until President Obama break the news. The capture and killing of Osama bin Laden had proved elusive even with the previous regime. Many people had given up on the possibility of justice following the atrocities committed by al Qaeda, with the most memorable one being the 9/11 attacks. Operation Geronimo elicited mixed reactions with opinions divided as to whether President Obama acted with or without legal authority, especially regarding international laws. Matters such as sending ground forces into Pakistan without the country’s consent, to delay telling the congress, authorize an explicit mission to kill and bury the body of the wartime any at sea provided some of the major legal challenges in the Operation Geronimo. The high stake decisions needed for Operation Geronimo necessitated the selection of a team of legal experts who advised the President on each of the four mentioned critical issues before the final plan was crafted and the plan executed successfully. Based on careful consideration of the action of sending an elite squad without the knowledge/consent of Pakistan, delayed telling of Congress, giving an explicit authority for the lethal mission, and burying Osama bin Laden at sea, Obama had the legal authority to order and execute the plan.

When the C.I.A thought and later confirmed the presence of Osama bin Laden at a compound Northeastern of Pakistan, in what was a military operation, whether to engage the Pakistani state or not proved to be the most delicate issue. For the top military brass, such information that was highly guarded would prove to be the next phase of action’s success or failure. The tightly held circle of military bosses was careful not to take any operation, fearing that any leakage would completely jeopardize the opportunity presented. Two possible courses of action ensued. One course of action entailed the bombing and flattening of the compound, which would level the ground and kill Osama bin Laden. The plan raised illegality because it would be impossible to save the lives of non-combat civilians present at the compound during the bombing, which would contravene the international laws that illegalize the intentional targeting of innocent civilians. The first option was to avoid paving the way for the second option of sending troops to the group. Once the second option was chosen, it automatically satisfied the legal principle of distinction and discrimination since the elite SEAL Team would effectively shoot at the compounds’ armed combats. However, the legal option opened another hurdle, and that was either to inform Pakistan officials of the intended raid on their territories.

Violating Pakistan’s sovereignty would come as a consequence of not informing authorities at Abbottabad, Pakistan, that boots would be at the ground to capture or kill bin Laden. International law requires that two countries are not at war to notify each other and obtain consent before using force on their soil, especially sending boots on the ground. Top counter intelligence advisors feared that the Pakistan authorities could have sanctioned the presence of Osama bin Laden at the military town, and therefore informing them or seeking their consequences would spoil the window of surprise and aid the escape of Osama bin Laden. A unilateral military incursion in a different country is permitted under international law under certain exceptions, and it is the provision that allowed the President to order the operation. Such exceptions include situations where a government is either unwilling or unable to prevent a threat faced by another country even when the threats are emanating from its country. Even though previous engagements between the USA and Pakistan had not set out a precedent that would lead to the conclusion requiring invoking the exception, it was acceptable by the President for two reasons. First, it gave a buffer zone if the soldiers went to the military town and failed to accomplish their mission since it could allow them to secretly get out of the country without their presence being noticed. Second, it would give the much-needed option to lift the secrecy and serve as a trump card when international pressure mounted on their involvement in a sovereign soil. The provision thus implies that the President acted legally without breaking any law.

The President ordered an explicit kill operation rather than capture was also a significant issue that many of the advisors had to contend with given the law’s provisions. Grappling with that challenge proved difficult to surmount because international law requires that a surrender option by combat, which is reasonable to be accepted. That would mean on the surface that the operation should have been a kill or capture mission. The President explicitly ordered a kill mission informed by the numerous expected challenge, especially when they ended up capturing Osama bin Laden. First, it would have been difficult to take Osama bin Laden as a captive to prison like the Guantanamo bay that President Obama promised to close. It was only such a prison capable of housing = such a high-value target. Secondly, the next challenge would have been the Americans’ raised threats, including increased hostages hoping for a prisoner’s exchange program. The military rules of engagement limit and narrows the scope defined as surrender. he high stakes and evidence suggesting that housing Osama bin Laden at the time was more catastrophic. Having made such a conclusion and knowing the narrow mirror allowed for surrender that would be legal, the president allowed for the kill operation with all fingers crossed that there would be some resistance level. Footage released by the SEALs and evidence all point to the fact that there was some level of resistance before Osama was killed; hence the President acted legally.

The final burial rites for an enemy slain in combat also provided a key legal question in planning and execution. From the onset, the USA was concerned with creating a shrine for the followers of Al Qaeda and those who believed in Osama bin Laden. The Geneva Convention states that all measures should be taken to bury slain combats and, if possible, according to human dignity. It also allows for burying the soldiers according to their religion. As an adherent to the Islamic faith, Osama’s slain body would have to be buried within the shortest frame possible. The USA would not allow the body to be buried in Pakistan as that would create a shrine. The USA made due diligence under the leadership of President Obama to request for Osama bin Laden’s country of citizenship to inquire if they would accept the body for burial riles. Luckily. Saudi Arabia also feared such a shrine in their country and declined to accept the body. The USA was left with the body, and they were happy to bank on some Islamic wrings that permit burial at sea during the voyage. The focus on the exception is that the law was not broken by the President when he ordered the operation.