Legal Authority and Operation Geronimo

Introduction

The term legal authority describes the legal right or power of an individual or group to do certain actions. Authority is the power to establish and implement legally binding rules and judgments. The Constitution, legislation, rules, case law, and other precedents are all potential sources of legal authority. For instance, a government official’s power to enforce laws and regulations may derive from the document’s authorizing language or from the express statutory language. As a result of constitutional and precedent power, a judge may have the legal authority to interpret and implement the law. However, it is questionable to what extent did Barack Obama have the legal authority to allow Operation Geronimo.

Discussion

Being legitimate and having the ability to make legally binding choices is what we mean when we talk about having legal authority. Constitutions and statutes are common legal vehicles for bestowing such authority onto deserving individuals and institutions. The President of the United States is vested with this power by the United States Constitution, which establishes him or her as the head of the executive branch and the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Besides the Constitution, Congress has created laws giving the President broad powers, including the ability to declare war, launch military operations, and issue sweeping executive orders. To ensure that these powers are used properly and in line with the law, they are subject to checks and balances imposed by other organs of government, such as Congress and the court. Despite popular belief, a judge’s decision may be challenged or overturned in court. A court may find that the President’s or another government official’s use of his or her legal power violates the Constitution or other laws, for instance. This means that the law, and its interpretations of it, are constantly open to challenge.

Yet, as seen by arguments for and against Obama’s legal power, certain examples of legal authority enactment, such as Operation Geronimo, indicate the fragility of this strategy. The US military operation on May 2, 2011, that ultimately led to the murder of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was known as Operation Geronimo (Ali, 2021). US Navy SEALs carried out the mission by storming the complex in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where bin Laden was hiding out. President Obama’s ability to command Operation Geronimo may have been overstepped in a number of ways, as has been argued below. The operation was carried out without Pakistan’s knowledge or agreement, which has led to claims that it violated Pakistan’s sovereignty. Military actions on the territory of another state are illegal unless approved by the UN or justified by national security concerns, according to international law. Those who disagree with the operation say the President did not have the right to authorize the operation since it violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It has also been argued that the operation amounted to an extrajudicial killing, as bin Laden was not caught and tried in court before being murdered. Others have argued that bin Laden should have been apprehended and brought to justice via the normal legal procedure instead of being killed in an extrajudicial killing, which they say violates international law and fundamental human rights norms.

Yet, Barack Obama, as President of the United States, was able to command military actions to safeguard the country’s security. The President of the United States is the head of state and commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces by virtue of the Constitution of the United States of America. The US authorities claimed that the operation was lawful since it was within the purview of the President. With the permission to Use Military Force (AUMF) the United States Government was granted the green light to use military force against those liable for the September 11 attacks by Congress in 2001 (Ali, 2021). In other words, they were allowed to use all force necessary to defeat the terrorist organizations al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The US administration justified the operation by claiming it was within its legal purview under the AUMF. The US administration has maintained that the operation was lawful since it was carried out in response to an imminent danger presented by a terrorist. About 3,000 people lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks, and Osama bin Laden was the commander of al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for them (Ali, 2021). When facing an actual or impending armed assault, a country has the legal right to employ force in self-defense, as recognized by international law. US officials justified the mission by saying it was essential and appropriate in light of the danger presented by bin Laden.

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other senior representatives of the presidential administration watched the operation almost live (Ali, 2021). Several people, both abroad and at home, questioned the President’s power to carry out such an operation in a foreign country, even though the Operation was widely accepted by international law enforcement. Reagan signed an executive order stating that no individual employed by or operating on behalf of the United States Government will participate in, or plot to engage in murder. This order is often cited as the source of widespread skepticism over the President’s legal authority. Unfortunately, assassination is not defined in the Executive Order (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). Many people think the order does not apply to wars. They view the lack of a definition of the phrase as an attempt to prevent it from being used to deter any future attempts by the government or presidents to guarantee national security. A Joint Resolution was passed by the 107th Congress of the United States in response to the events on September 11 (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). It declared that the President has the power to apply “all necessary and appropriate force” against nations and individuals who were responsible for the September 11 attacks (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020, 4). Moreover, if they have harbored terrorist groups or individuals, they must stop supporting them so that they cannot commit acts of international terrorism against the United States in the future. This resolution makes it quite apparent that the President was within his authority to approve Operation Geronimo in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). If the President needed Congress’s blessing before carrying out such a major military action, then a Presidential determination to kill Bin Laden as a hostile power must have backed the authorized use of force. The President is obligated to share these conclusions with the congressional leadership. The preparation began well before the actual operation. That indicates Obama did not break any domestic laws and did not go against Legislative wishes. Based on the above, it may be safely concluded that President Obama did possess the necessary legal authority to approve and authorize Operation Geronimo. This mission followed years of surveillance and fighting in Afghanistan as part of a larger effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, the head of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda. As President, Obama has always acted within the bounds of the law, both at home and abroad, reiterating a core tenet of American identity: a commitment to the rule of law (Rogers, 2019). Rather than an act of vengeance, the United States conducted Operation Geronimo in an effort to protect its citizens and its territory. Osama bin Laden was blocked and killed during a shootout in a fortified complex of buildings on the outskirts of the city of Abbottabad in the northwest of Pakistan, 100 km from Islamabad (Rogers, 2019). Ten years of effort were finally rewarded when the United States finally located Osama bin Laden, the major perpetrator of the deadliest assault ever carried out against the nation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the operation was based on a significant amount of intelligence gathered over many years, and it was executed with precision and care to avoid civilian casualties and minimize the impact on the local population. Arguments for and against President Obama’s decision to initiate Operation Geronimo highlight the nuanced nature of legal power. The justification for the operation was that it was a necessary response to an urgent danger presented by a terrorist and lawful use of the powers afforded by the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Despite the fact that this justification was legally permissible and internationally authorized, the doubtful morality of the situation remains. Nevertheless, it was necessary to prevent future attacks, provide justice for the victims of the September 11 attacks, restore national security, and send a message to terrorists that the United States would not tolerate attacks on its citizens or interests. Ultimately, the success of Operation Geronimo was a significant victory for the United States and a moment of closure for many Americans.

References

Ali, S. (2021). Religious Extremism, bin Laden and Pakistan: A Content Analysis of the British and the US Mainstream Print Media. Peshawar Islamicus, 12(1), 1-22. 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.

Rogers, A. (2019). Owning Geronimo but Not Elmer McCurdy: The Unique Property Status of Native American Remains. BCL Rev., 60, 2347. Web.