The submission of the United States to an International Criminal Court abuses intrinsicality

This debate is about an interesting contention I found in a debate between basketballer and ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46. The topic was "resolved: The U.S. ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity." Here is the contention mentioned by the neg (vir...): "My first contention is that submission of the United States to an International Criminal Court abuses intrinsicality. Should the United States submit to an International Criminal Court, the intrinsicality of its citizens would be limited. Those who, for example, join the United States army in hope of helping their country would possibly be prosecuted for patriotism. These citizens are then at risk for the simple tasks of doing their jobs. This ties right in with utilitarianism; the best way to support as many people as possible is to protect the innocent before prosecuting the guilty. After all, the United States court system goes by the philosophy of 'innocent until proven guilty.'" I will be arguing against this, and my opponent for. I will now present my case. For clarification, the international criminal court (ICC) setup by the UN is what this is referring to. The submission of the United States does not and cannot abuse intrinsicality. The argument here is that it is for the greater good that the United States does not submit to such jurisdiction. But this is false as it cannot possibly be for the greater good. The ICC has jurisdiction over the following: 1. Crimes against humanity 2. Genocide 3. War Crimes 4. Crimes of Aggression 1. Crimes against humanity means the any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: Murder; Extermination; Enslavement; Deportation or forcible transfer of population; Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; Torture; Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; Enforced disappearance of persons; The crime of apartheid; Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. This definition from the Rome Statute defies any possibility of abuse to intrinsicality resulting in the prosecution of a soldier for committing a crime against humanity. The definition says "widespread or systematic attack," thus it is necessary for the crime to be committed against a large population. In such a case, the crime cannot be justified as an act of patriotism. Genocide is defined as a crime committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such by the Rome Statute. Again, the large number affected by the crime make it unjustifiable as an act of patriotism. War crimes are crimes committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes as stated in the Rome Statute. The Statute then goes onto specifics, the first of which are: Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Grave breaches are defined as any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. This definition is taken from the Geneva Conventions of 1949. No crime that is grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 can be justified as an act for patriotism. The next few specifics in the Rome Statute are all about violations of predefined international law. Again, no crime that breaks already defined law can be justified as an act of patriotism. The last, crimes of aggression, is not under ICC jurisdiction until a certain provision is adopted. As it is not under the jurisdiction, it means nothing to this debate. I eagerly await my opponent's response.