Resolved: The United States ought Submit to Jurdict an international court design to prose CAH

i am sorry i shorten the some words in the topic the resolution states Resolved: the united states ought to submit to an international design to prosecute crimes against humanity and the obs means observation of the resolution which is me defining what it is saying and that we can use the any internaitonal court not just the icc icj and other various courts now to the arguments Value Criterion well you said that "We must ask ourselves if joining an international court is moral" well the resolution states "the United States ought" which ought implies a moral obligation you also said that " International court have no realistic means to realize justice to the world in the current situation" but i will give you some examples on how it has been working in the current situation first the numberg trials of world war two where we set up a internaitonal tribunal which is base on the same princple of a IC but is temperory but is where we prosecuted nazi war crimnials and here are just several more that are in front of the court right now Situation in Democratic Republic of the Congo Situation in Uganda Situation in Central African Republic and another thing you did not give any warrents or evidence on why you said its not moral for the us to join and you stated that the us court system is better but what right does the us has to prosecute ever one on a world wide basis onto your arguments in my contention 1 you said that i shown many examples of human right violations that the us is doing and ask if an international court could do better well first very few of the people in guantotmo bay where ever indicted which means that there rights of habus corpse {which is the right to not be held with out sufficet evidence or trial for more than 24 hours dirived from the constitution) and out of every one there very few are even going to have a trial so i am say that if the united states join an international court that the court could have a system to keep crimes like this from happening and on to your second argument you said why can't the us be able to keep the us in check well this stuff has been happing for several years and nothing in the us court has happen to stop it contention 2 your first argument about the if nations are commiting crimes against humanity then it is a crime against the world so it is ever one problem like the holocaust that effected everone didn't the world have the right to stop it and i would also like to states in the rome statute that the icc is based on it said that it would only intervine when a country isn't doing anything about the crime against humanity so it would not mean that the us could not still prosicute any of it crimes first which means it is only a court of last resort when the national level judicial court do not work second argument if a super power commited a crime the court would be able to prosicute these crimes with the help of the world because the world will be the courts enforcement onto the statment the court needs money well i would like to say the un needs money to and they get it and the court could be apart of the un so it would share the same flow of income and then your statment that alot of these problems can be taken care of with out an internaitonal court if they could they would of already and also the court will have checks and balences to be able to prosecute these super powers i am now waiting for your response