A lot of people have severely criticized the United States and the Bush administration for its refusal to ratify the International Criminal Court treaty. President Bush even went so far as to unsign the document, reversing Clinton's action. Even Clinton did not try to get the ICC treaty ratified by Congress. And so our nation has received a lot of flak for our "disregard for human rights".

But these comments are hypocritical when you examine the details of the court's framework. Many of the safeguards and rights protected by the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights with regards to prosecution and our court system are missing from the ICC. Verdicts do not follow the same appeals process, and the court is basically accountable to no one. The Internation Criminal Court fundamentally recognizes fewer rights than our current national system, and is open to more abuse.

Supporters deny that the court could ever be used by U.S. enemies to prosecute American soldiers and politicians for imagined war crimes, because, they claim, the court is only to be used for violations where the nation refuses to act on its own. It doesn't take a genius, though, to realize that the U.S. isn't likely to prosecute soldiers for following legitimate orders, or politicians for acting in our national interests. There are people out there who insist our actions in Kosovo and Afghanistan are war crimes. Are we going to try Clinton and Bush for either of these? No, of course not. Doesn't that then open the door for the ICC to step in? And what about the soldiers and pilots who actually carried out these actions? The United States didn't refuse to ratify the ICC treaty because we don't recognize the importance of prosecuting war criminals. We ratified it because it is a flawed system open to abuse that recognizes fewer human rights than our own Constitution.