>>Sorry, I should have been clearer. As a civilian, if I am on another country's soil, I am obviously subject to their laws. Here in the U.S.? I am subject to U.S. laws, not the laws of the International Criminal Court.
>
>You are still subject to international laws, regardless of your or your country's decision to be subject to them. That's what the sentence says above. It is just a matter of being able to nab you.

Somehow, I doubt that is going to happen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

The United States, amid bipartisan consensus, has stated that it does not intend to ratify the treaty creating the International Criminal Court. Although the then U.S. President, Bill Clinton, signed the court treaty, he stated he would not support its ratification as it stood, and only signed so that the United States could participate in negotiations on the court's rules of procedure. Under United States and International Law, a signature is not binding unless and until a treaty is ratified. Commentators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment, as it creates a court of appeal above the U.S. Supreme Court, which would be able to act if it decided that the US was unable or unwilling to prosecute any alleged crimes.