>>http://www.iht.com/articles/89441.htm (and 89 related, according to news.google.com).
>>
>>What I find weird about this is that the U.S. strongly opposes this court.
>
>I can understand that position...
>
>Despite the current itchy trigger-finger for annihilating Iraq on a pretext (of possibly one day assisting terrorists) the U.S. is called upon often to "fix" serious problems throughout the world. And of course that "fix" typically involves their mighty military.
>
>Now it is bound to happen, somewhere somehow, that something will go "bad", and in such cases there could be action started in a "world criminal court" against them.
>So you get a "helping hand" being squashed by the court. And worse, you get penalties imposed that you are honour-bound to apply because of your membership in the court. Rulings that could well prohibit practises within one's own establishments AT HOME.
>Putting itself in that position is not a wise move, neither for itself nor for the world at large in my opinion.

So the US wants to be the world's policeman, fighting to uphold international laws, but not having the inconvenience of being hampered by being bound by those laws.