Victor,

My major concern is the ICC having jurisdiction over American citizens conducting themselves in a foreign country as a member of our Armed Forces.

However, I have some other concerns with the ICC (the way it is now):

The ICC would subject American citizens to prosecution in a court that was NOT created under Article III of the Constitution.

The Sixth Amendment, the right of confrontation includes the right to know the identity of hostile witnesses and to exclude any hearsay evidence. However, in the Yugoslavia trial, anonymous witnesses and hearsay evidence was allowed.

The constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in Article III. The idea behind it is to guard against the possibility of oppression and tyranny by rulers.

The constitution guarantees safety against double jeopardy. In the ICC, acquittals can be appealed by the Prosecutor. In fact, the Prosecutor in the Yugoslav Tribunal has appealed every acquittal.

The right to a speedy trial is not guaranteed by the ICC. Hague prosecutors have argued in the past that five years in prison is not too long to wait for a judgement to be rendered. This goes against the presumption of innocence. In the U.S. you must go to trial within 70 days of the indictment unless waived by defense.

While it may be argued that the ICC would not violate the constitution because it would not be a court of the U.S. and so the Bill of Rights do not apply. The difference between extradiction cases and the ICC is that in the ICC Americans could be tried for actions taken entirely within the U.S. borders.

Legally, the U.S. cannot sign and ratify the ICC treaty because it would become a state party to it. That would mean that any judgements and actions taken on behalf of the ICC would also be on behalf of the United States Government. The U.S. must guarantee the Bill of Rights will be adhered to for all of its citizens.

Any mostly of all, it goes against statements made by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence when severing ties with England and King George:

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws establishing therein an Arbitrary government

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments