Introduction
Neptune Spear is the code name for an operation authorized by President Obama on May 2, 2011, by a special unit called DEVGRU to assassinate an al-Qaeda leader. After that, Barack Obama delivered a speech that caused an international outcry (Bowcott, 2011). While much of the public reaction to Geronimo’s operation was positive, many legal questions remained about the process. Al-Qaeda issued a statement announcing the death of its leader four days later. Nevertheless, there are three aspects in which this operation by Barack Obama is more justified from different points of view than not. First, al-Qaeda, led by bin Laden, had carried out about two dozen brutal terrorist attacks by that time, which had led to the death of many civilians and military personnel who countered them (Byman & Mir, 2022). Secondly, from an emotional point of view, this terrorist group did not receive a proper response after the September 9 tragedy, which caused public unrest for a long time. Finally, intelligence had evidence that bin Laden was planning a powerful new attack ten years after 9/11, and steps had to be taken to prevent it (Pfarrer, 2011). Without the relevant legislative acts, for example, US Congress Resolution about force against terrorists, this operation could have been criminal and willful, especially since its preparation details were kept secret until it was carried out. As a result, Obama secured in advance the support at the legislative level of local and international law, which gave him the legal authority to carry out this operation.
Domestic Legislation
For quite a long time, Osama bin Laden remained at large, despite the vast number of charges against him. Even 25 million dollars for information about the whereabouts of the terrorist did not go to anyone. Many authorities, including American forces and the Pakistani CIA, worked on the capture. Tracking down the target was possible thanks to US intelligence analysts who followed Bin Laden’s couriers and went to a house in Abbottabad, Pakistan, which was well enough protected to arouse suspicion. At the same time, there was no clear and exhaustive evidence that the terrorist was located there, in connection with which Barack Obama, organizing the operation, took a considerable risk.
This operation could be considered a crime without relevant regulations and other international and domestic law aspects. However, after the terrorist attacks that led to the fall of the Twin Towers in 2001, the US Congress passed the resolution “Permission to use military force against terrorists”, giving the authority to the government of the country and in particular the president to use force against accomplices (Searcey, 2011). It was this resolution that the Obama administration referred to in justifying the Geronimo process.
The choice of the method of carrying out the special operation should not have affected the civilian population in the first place, and this aspect was decisive in the construction of the plan. Although the secrecy of the operation created corresponding risks, given that the Pakistani government was not informed, the threat to the world community remained at the level of a terrorist threat. In the preparation process, such options as a massive air strike and drone use were excluded for reasons of danger to the civilian population and conviction that the target was chosen correctly. The operation organizers had no choice but to choose the riskiest option – a ground operation by a special forces detachment.
On the other hand, in 1998, bin Laden was indicted in the United States District Court of Manhattan. By law, the accused must be detained and brought to trial (Bowcott, 2011). In fact, Obama had the right to act in the interests of the judiciary, even in the territory of another country. However, after the operation, many governments and the media questioned whether the order was to kill or take life (Pfarrer, 2011). No one made any legal claims against Obama within the country, so any legislative issues, if raised, were settled in advance.
Moreover, the population received the news positively, although some opinions raised quite adequate questions. Dissatisfaction was caused by the lack of direct evidence of the murder of a terrorist, despite the fact that group confirmation, as well as several legislative motives and a secret form of burial, led to a polarization of opinions. Although each participant was not supposed to go into detail about the work of the special forces group, various aspects of the operation began to leak to the press. However, this reflects individual responsibility that had no consequences for the participants.
It is rather difficult to give a legal assessment of this activity since the consequences that could have been if the terrorist had remained alive are unknown. Although most of the population and activists would be satisfied if bin Laden were taken alive and brought to justice, the nature of the special operation carried several risks, including for the civilian population of Pakistan; therefore, it is very likely that Obama took the only option allowed by the law.
International Law
Pakistan, where the operation took place, caused the sharpest reaction. Pakistan’s partnership in combating terrorism was questioned because the terrorist was in their territory (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). The first reaction was to accuse the US of unauthorized actions and violation of the country’s sovereignty. There was information about the involvement of the Pakistani government in al-Qaeda, so the suspicions were not groundless: despite the efforts of American intelligence, bin Laden was at large for a long time. However, the answer was not long in coming. The law enshrined in the UN allowed foreign intervention in the form of an operation with the use of force on the territory of another country in the event that this party did not have the opportunity or ability to solve the problem on its own (Searcey, 2011). Given that the international security issue, which a terrorist group threatened, was being resolved, justification at the international level was also not long in coming. Except for some activists who more often raised the issue of human rights or the religious traditions of Muslims, no one made legal claims against Obama.
Conclusion
Barack Obama’s responsibility for setting in motion the Operation Neptune Spear plan was justified domestically and met with dissent only within the framework of international law and media outcry, related more to the consequences of the deed than to the motives. The accusations were primarily verbal and directed at a request to shed more light on the investigation and the path leading up to that decision. On the other hand, the secrecy of the operation preparation allowed the United States to carry it out successfully and without losses. Most of the claims rested on the recognition of an act of self-defense. Although many organizations, most often aimed at protecting human rights, did not approve of the unauthorized conduct of the operation, comparing it to execution, Barack Obama and the U.S. government have not received a proper legally documented charge to this day, which indicates that the then President had legal authority.
References
Bowcott, O. (2011) Osama bin Laden: US responds to questions about killing’s legality. The Guardian. Web.
Byman, D., & Mir, A. (2022). How strong is Al-Qaeda? A debate. War on the Rocks. Web.
Pfarrer, C. (2011). SEAL Target Geronimo: The inside story of the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. St. Martin’s Press.
Searcey, D. (2011) Killing was legal under U.S. and international law, many experts say. The Wall Street Journal. Web.
Soherwordi, S. H. S., & Khattak, S. A. (2020). Operation Geronimo: Assassination of Osama Bin Ladin and its implications on the US-Pakistan relations, War on Terror, Pakistan and Al-Qaeda. South Asian Studies, 26(2). Web.