quote: [hr]An international criminal court, with teeth (ie US support and sponsorship) could potentially provide such a deterrent. It's to defend the innocent from monstrous atrocities[hr] i agree but as the ICC stands right now it is too easy for "judges" who have grudges against other countries to act on them. let me use an example not concerning the U.S. (i hate what if's but here is yet another one) what if an Israeli leader is subject to trial under the ICC and the presiding judge is Palestinian. need i go on? quote: [hr]Hitler and Stalin escaped justice. Around the world former dictators live in luxury and not all of them in third world countries. Sure, you can say it's somebody elses problem, but I think that's just plain wrong. [hr] yes it is wrong and i i think that the U.S. is a world leader and needs to take the lead in dealing w/ these dictators. now i do NOT wish to have some elitist american label given to me because even though i am U.S. military personnel, you have no idea how much i would Love world peace. if i thought the ICC could acheive this in it's current state i would be in total support of the U.S joining it. but it is too flawed the way it is now. yes the ICC was meant to "defend the innocent from monstrous atrocities" but i feel as it stands right now it is just welcoming unjust actions due to prejudices in the name of justice. Edit: i am off to bed, i'll be back tomorrow to comment on your rebuttle.