Operation Geronimo and Presidential Authority

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Supporting arguments
Conclusion
References

Introduction

On April 29, 2011, the then US commander in chief, President Obama, authorized an operation that ultimately led to the killing of the most wanted man on the CIA watch list, Osama bin Laden. In this Operation Geronimo persuasive essay, we discuss historical actions via the spectrum of legal and political lenses.

Reports indicate that President Obama had been consulting with the National Security Council for months on the probability of Osama bin Laden being within the suspected hideout and the possibility of authorizing a mission. Ultimately, President Obama gave the orders, and Osama bin Laden was killed in a military exercise dubbed Operation Geronimo, thus ending a decade-long search mission to capture the head of Al Qaeda. The killing of Osama bin Laden was a reprieve for millions of Americans and the international community, especially after the events of September 11, 2001, the infamous Twin Towers bomb attack by Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, questions abound on whether President Obama had legal authority for Operation Geronimo. Read this Operation Geronimo case study and discover arguments supporting Obama’s right to execute the plan.

Supporting arguments

One needs to investigate the decision using US domestic and international laws to understand President Obama’s legality in authorizing Operation Geronimo. The agnosticism surrounding the legality of permitting Operation Geronimo hinges on President Reagan’s Executive Order 12333, which states, “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination” (Fisher & Becker, 2021, p. 2). However, this order does not define assassination contextually (Koven & Perez, 2022), and thus, the Operation cannot be termed illegal based on this understanding. In addition, after the 9/11 bombings, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution. The resolution allows the US commander-in-chief “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons” (Fisher & Becker, 2021, p. 2). Therefore, under this resolution, President Obama was within the confines of the US domestic laws to authorize the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, who was actively involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

However, even with the legality of such authorization, questions abound on how the execution of the operation observed laws of armed conflict, viz. “military necessity, proportionality, and distinction/discrimination” (Solis, 2021, p. 268). Military necessity was qualified in this case as Bin Laden had attacked the US, and he was a threat to international peace by propagating terrorism. Likewise, the force that was used after entering Bin Laden’s house was proportional to the danger that he posed to the elite squad, for he allegedly reached for his firearm to retaliate. Finally, the discrimination requirement was fulfilled as the people who died in the ensuing confrontation were collateral damage but not targets of the assault. Operation Geronimo case study could become an ideal tool for assessing the behavior of public officials in the national security context.

As mentioned earlier, the authorization had to align with international laws. Under the international law rules of jus ad bellum, “State can justify an international use of force if the force was either used in self-defense following an armed attack or expressly permitted by the United Nations (UN) Security Council” (Lieblich, 2021, p. 1). In this case, the US was a victim of Bin Laden’s armed attack on 9/11, and capturing him was a way of self-defense. Conversely, the rules of jus in bello set “the parameters on the allowable scope and nature of that force” (Lieblich, 2021, p. 2). Therefore, the US had the legal basis to enter Pakistan and execute its mission within the confines of international law. There have been allegations that the US violated Pakistani sovereignty by raiding Bin Laden’s hideout without the involvement of the local authorities (Roy et al., 2022). The UN Charter emphasizes respect for territorial sovereignty, which all nations should respect (Koven & Perez, 2022). However, Article 51 of the same UN Charter creates a legal leeway for the US to pursue its aggressors as self-defense, even to the extent of breaching the other countries’ territorial sovereignty (Finkelstein, 2021). Therefore, President Obama acted within international law by authorizing Operation Geronimo.

Conclusion

Osama Bin Laden orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which changed the way the US defended itself against such hostilities. After the attacks, Congress authorized the then-US President to pursue the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks inside and outside the country. Therefore, after President Obama received intelligence reports that Bin Laden’s hideout had been identified, he had the legal obligation and power to authorize a military attack. Later, questions on the legality of such authorization based on domestic and international laws were raised. Operation Geronimo’s persuasive essay proved an essential step towards realizing the nuanced nature of presidential powers in national security. More questions emerged about how the mission was executed and whether rules of armed conflict were observed. However, this paper has answered these questions to uphold the argument that President Obama had the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and to execute the plan.

References

Finkelstein, C. (2021). The status of state and nonstate actors in postwar hostilities: Restoring the rule of law to US targeted killing operations. Vand. J. Transnat’l L., 54, 1163. Web.

Fisher, D., & Becker, M. H. (2021). The heterogeneous repercussions of killing Osama bin Laden on global terrorism patterns. European Journal of Criminology, 18(3), 301-324. Web.

Koven, S. G., & Perez, A. F. (2022). Ethics of targeted killings and assassinations. Public Integrity, 24(3), 319-328. Web.

Lieblich, E. (2021). The humanization of jus ad bellum: prospects and perils. European Journal of International Law, 32(2), 579-612. Web.

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). Web.

Solis, G. (2021). The law of armed conflict: International humanitarian law in war (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Click Here To Order Now!

Operation Geronimo and Presidential Authority

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)