ensure openness under U.S. law, President Obama followed the proper procedures when he
informed congressional leaders that bin Laden was a valid military target. The months-long
planning that went into the operation went on to ascertain that it complied with legal (including
procedural) standards, and thus confirmed that bin Laden was a legitimate target under the
AUMF as an active danger. All in all, through operating within this framework, President Obama
upheld his statutory plus moral duties in the fight against terrorism while using his constitutional
authority as Commander-in-Chief.
Beyond domestic law, the principle of self-defense, which is established in Article 51 of
the UN Charter and more so, acknowledges a nation's inherent right to respond to armed attacks,
provided strong backing for Operation Geronimo under international law. That noted, Osama bin
Laden is considered a perpetual combatant under international law because, aside from
masterminding the 9/11 attacks, he declared war on the United States (not only that but
continued to plan acts of terrorism throughout the world). Notably, legal scholars note that "A
state may defend itself by using force against non-state actors if the host country is unwilling or
unable to deal with the threat," (O'Connell 219). The United States' unilateral action to minimize
the threat was justified by Pakistan's incapacity (say unwillingness) to apprehend bin Laden in
Abbottabad. In addition, the international agreement that al-Qaeda was a legitimate military
target was strengthened by NATO's invocation of Article 5 collective defense following 9/11 and
later UN Security Council resolutions (such as Resolution 1368). So, the US made their case that
whatever their action was, it was legal and necessary. Why? These protocols will play an
important role in maintaining global peace and security, and more importantly, the right to self-
defence against terrorism.