So do the Geneva Conventions that Iraq also signed.

They are prohibited based upon treaties that Iraq is a signatory to.

When one violates a treaty, the other signers of said treaty have the right to punish the violator.



As I understand your position, you believe the signing of treaties and other international agreements creates international law. Furthermore, you support the enforcement of international law. When signatories violate the terms of treaties, you believe the other signees have the legal right to punish the violators. Is this an accurate description of your position?

Consider these violation of international law. In 1984, in violation of the OAS Treaty (of which the U.S. was a founding member) and other international treaties, the Reagan administration secretly mined two Nicaraguan harbors, a blatant act of terrorism.

This is a summary of an Ollie North to Robert McFarlane memo:

This NSC memo provides the strategic rationale for U.S. mining of Nicaraguan harbors during the Reagan administration. Between January 7 and March 30, 1984 a total of 39 mines were planted. By early 1984, ten commercial ships had been damaged by the mines, including a Mexican oil tanker carrying 75,000 barrels of fuel. The mining operation cost the Nicaraguans more than $10 million, with cotton and coffee piling up on the docks, while imports and exports had to be trucked to and from ports in neighboring Central American countries.

Doc 38, North to Mcfarlane

The International Court of Justice ruled on some of those violations. Here are some excerpts:

215. The Court has noted above (paragraph 77 in fine) that the United States did not issue any warning or notification of the presence of the mines which had been laid in or near the ports of Nicaragua. Yet even in time of war, the Convention relative to the laying of automatic submarine contact mines of 18 October 1907 (the Hague Convention No. VIII) provides that "every possible precaution must be taken for the security of peaceful shipping" and belligerents are bound





"to notify the danger zones as soon as military exigencies permit, by a notice addressed to ship owners, which must also be communicated to the Governments through the diplomatic channel" (Art. 3).

Neutral Powers which lay mines off their own coasts must issue a similar notification, in advance (Art. 4). It has already been made clear above that in peacetime for one State to lay mines in the internal or territorial waters of another is an unlawful act; but in addition, if a State lays mines in any waters whatever in which the vessels of another State have rights of access or passage, and fails to give any warning or notification whatsoever, in disregard of the security of peaceful shipping, it commits a breach of the principles of humanitarian law underlying the specific provisions of Convention No. VIII of 1907. Those principles were expressed by the Court in the Corfu Channel case as follows:

"certain general and well recognized principles, namely: elementary considerations of humanity, even more exacting in peace than in war" (I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 22).
. . .

(7) By fourteen votes to one,

Decides that, by the acts referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and the Republic of Nicaragua signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharriere; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Oda, Ago, Sette-Camara, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judge Schwebel.

(8) By fourteen votes to one,

Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharriere; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Schwebel, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judge Oda.



Given that the U.S. government cites the violations of international law by others as legal justification for the U.S. using violence and other forms of coercion, you may believe the U.S is morally and legally obligated to obey international law and conform to the terms of the treaties of which the U.S. is a signatory.

The Reagan administration ignored that obligation. The U.S. government not only violated international law, it announced before the ICJ ruling occurred that the U.S. wouldn't be bound by the ruling.

As for Saddam being a mass murderer, the Reagan administration organized, funded, armed
and guided the terrorist contras in Nicaragua. The CIA produced and distributed a manual on guerilla warfare (dubbed the "assassination manual") suggesting the contras target civilians:

"It is possible to neutralize carefully selected and planned targets, such as court judges, mesta judges, police and State Security officials, CDS chiefs, etc. For psychological purposes it is necessary to take extreme precautions, and it is absolutely necessary to gather together the population affected, so that they will be present, take part in the act, and formulate accusations against the oppressor."

In a later section on "Control of mass concentrations and meetings", the following guidance is given:

Specific tasks will be assigned to others, in order to create a martyr' for the cause, taking the demonstrators to a confrontation with the authorities, in order to bring about uprisings or shootings, which will cause the death of one or more persons, who would become the martyrs, a situation that should be made use of immediately against the regime, in order to create greater conflicts."

"If possible, professional criminals will be hired to carry out special selective jobs'.

The Reagan adminstration's contra-related activities were also a violation of international law. If Saddam is a mass murderer because he violated international law prohibiting such activities, why aren't Reagan and certain other members of his administration also mass murderers?

And if the most powerful member of the world community isn't held to account for its treaty violations, how is international law different from the Law of the Jungle?