September 11, 2001, 19 Islamic extremist hijack 4 US airplanes in order to carry out suicide attacks, two of which were flown into the twin towers of New York’s World Trade Centers. These acts of terror would force the United States into a war that some would consider never ending. The head of these Attacks, Osama Bin-Laden, rose to the top of Americas worst criminals, becoming public enemy number one. The hunt for Bin-Laden was imminent, the murderer of many Americans was finally served justice on May 2, 2011 when a team of highly trained Special Operations fighters entered his compound located in Abbottabad, Pakistan (Operation Geronimo) and killed him. Some would argue that without permission from the Allied Sovereign Nation, military operations inside its regions would be illegal. The Executive Order12333 implemented by President Ronald Reagan, the authorization for “Use of Military Force” signed by President George W. Bush and jus ad bellum/jus in bello international law disputes any argument that the US committed any illegal acts during Operation Geronimo.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order (EO) 12333 stating that “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” (KILLING OSAMA BIN LADEN: LEGAL AND NECESSARY) causing many people to question the domestic legality of the operation that killed Osama Bin-Laden. It is important to note that in the Executive Order 12333, the term assassination is not defined in a way that could hinder military operations. It is also important to note that even if the term was defined so that Operation Neptune Spear (Operation Geronimo) was illegal, it would only be punishable by the President of the United States, who gave the order for the mission in the first place. The executive orders application is only relevant in peacetime. The order was put in place prior to 9/11, before President George W. Bush signed a bill that would change the way we view EO 12333 and make Operation Geronimo legally possible.
September 18, 2001 congress enacted the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’’ as part of Public-Law 107-40. This enactment was in response to the 9/11 attacks that happened just weeks before. In short, this resolution gives the President permission to use appropriate force against any group, entity, or individual that had any involvement in the September 11 terror attacks. If there were any question about what the President could or couldn’t do, this authorization would supersede all other domestic laws that could prevent the President from ordering the operation in Pakistan.
It is obvious that domestically, the United States was within its legal right to order the mission that was carried out to kill Osama Bin-Laden. Much of what the general public was exposed to in the media was international law, many argued that by international law the mission was illegal. Analyzing International Law slightly more complex than domestic. According to International Law, the use of force must follow both “jus ad bellum” and “jus in bello”, both widely considered to be “laws of war”. Jus ad bellum is essentially a criterion set in place to determine if a war is entered in a just manner. Jus in bello dictates the allowable use of force, mostly set in place to minimize suffering in armed conflicts.
The right to use force (jus ad bellum) is satisfied if “the use of force was used in self-defense following an armed attack” (KILLING OSAMA BIN LADEN: LEGAL AND NECESSARY). Some question if the raid was an act of self-defense? If not, it most certainly was a war crime. US Attorney General Eric Holder stated, "If there was the possibility of a feasible surrender, that would have occurred” (Osama Bin Laden: Legality of killing questioned) implying that the use of force was necessary as the US Navy SEALs lives were endangered by Bin-Laden. The US Government has made it clear that Bin-Laden was possibly reaching for a weapon during the time he was shot, the Navy SEALs were also under the impression that people in the compound may be wearing suicide vests, a common issue that American soldiers have faced throughout the war. The attacks of 9/11 fall into the criteria that granted the United States the legal authority to enter Pakistani air space without notifying Pakistan or the United Nations. Therefor the US was in the right to carry out the mission that the American public had waited so long for. To their credit, the US quickly notified Pakistan after the raid. It is rumored that Pakistan officials knew more about the raid prior to its execution than the public has been lead to believe but no sources to confirm. Regardless, the US was well within its right to hunt down the most wanted man in the world without tipping off its supposed Allie.
On August 23, 1996, Bin-Laden declared war on the United States, further backing the President’s decision to carry out the mission that ended in Bin-Laden’s death. His acts of terror from 1996 forward were constant reminders that in order for us to effectively destroy the enemy, new laws would have to be put in place that supersede those previously written.
The mission, one of the highest profile missions in US history, could not be Jeopardized by giving a foreign nation information that could be leaked, causing mission failure. I would also argue that the world had not seen an enemy like Osama Bin-laden and his insurgents, making it difficult to foresee a future and write the necessary laws to combat an enemy as such. President Barack Obamas decision to infiltrate Pakistani airspace in order to carry out the mission was the right one. Although controversial, the Executive Order (EO) 12333, the Public-Law 107-40, “jus ad bellum” and “jus in bello” justifies both the necessary domestic and international laws set in place to prevent any war crimes. With that, it is clear the United States was within right to conduct the mission, leaving a high-profile terrorist dead and the American Nation United.