The I. C. C. (International Criminal Court) should try American war criminals for war crimes.

This is a wonderfully complex topic, And I agree to Pro's definitions of what constitutes the International Criminal Court. Sorry for the slightly out of order source material. Just follow the numbers to see what connects to where. I understand the outline of the Pro's case as trying to show the moral goodness of what the ICC was trying to accomplish, And that therefore the US is morally obligated to try and follow it. I disagree for the following reasons. Rebuttals will follow this round as originally outlined, So I will not speak specifically on Pro"s case. As for the Con points of argument, I will go for 3 main contentions. Contentions: 1. Impossible implementation This argument is mainly analytical. The US has notably already broken plenty of international regulatory agreements, And as one of the most powerful members of the UN generally punishment has not been enforced. International regulation as a whole acts more like "guidelines" than actual international law. Pro reasonably agrees that the purpose of the ICC was "To ensure that all nations would follow the laws of war"(Pro, Round 1). That was the original idea, And yes, It"s a grand idea, But international regulations have a history of falling flat. Especially in connection with the Geneva convention, Practically every state that has had a war since agreeing to uphold these "rules of war" have violated them at some point with little to no retribution, Even the US (sourced case of the Korean war, And later the Vietnam war)(5). The single biggest problem with the ICC is that its grounded in a utopia fantasy where ideas are implemented exactly like they sound on paper. The UN is an example of how international regulations aren"t fair. The UN security counsel holds all the power, With the US and its allies being the main movers of policy to benefit themselves. Under the UN, The US already should have been held accountable for numerous violations of all kinds of laws, Likewise many US allies, But nothing happens. Why? Because the US and its allies are the ones that control everything, And no one wants to convict themselves internationally. The ICC would do nothing different. 2. International disputes and ridicule Two subpoints to this one. subpoint1 - Security, Economic risk, Public embarrassment Joining the ICC would make USA vs the world, Used to embarrass the US and twisted to meet international political agendas"leading to bad press, Maybe trade sanctions to hurt economy, And international prisons for former US American presidents, Which would theoretically be indited under the claims of some of Pro"s evidence (see Noam Chomsky). Imagine how insane that would look" the US handing over 3 or 4 of its former presidents to the international community saying, "here, Do what you"d like with these guys. It"s not like they know incredibly important national secrets or anything. I guess you can imprison them in Russia or something if you all really want to. " The security risk to extradite high-ranking military officers freely to the international community is WAY too high to make an international court case even worth the risk. Being embarrassed doesn't sound like such a big deal for us as private citizens, But it"s a huge thing for a whole country to undergo international ridicule. Who would be the first to accuse the US? Russia, China, And other political enemies for sure. Whole government coverups and wars have been put together to avoid even domestic ridicule from policy slip-ups, And there"s no way that America would be willing to put itself through painful disputes and accusations on an even bigger scale with no benefit to itself. Pro may just be referencing the moral and admirable need for individuals to take accountability for their actions, But the US government understands that those individuals" actions are much bigger than themselves and bring national shame to the state. I argue that this is one of the reasons that there are already existing laws preventing the US from contributing to the international court. "It is important to note that our government is prevented by certain laws such as the"American Service-Members" Protection Act of 2002"from providing direct monetary assistance to the court""(2) US Ambassador Stephen Rapp made these same arguments but in a more farvorable light, Saying "long-standing political and philosophical traditions in our country have prevented us from joining the ICC" (2). Basically the US don"t wanna have their service members pegged. subpoint 2 - Power imbalance Not only that, But we realize that, Should America suddenly join the ICC, It would be the UN security counsel all over again. The USA would have ridiculous influence, Being the biggest superpower, And would be able to reject any dockets or accusations that it didn"t like. This is exactly what the US pushed for a decade or two back. "The Clinton administration participated actively in negotiations towards the International Criminal Court treaty, Seeking Security Council screening of cases. If adopted, This would have enabled the US to veto any dockets it opposed. When other countries refused to agree to such an unequal standard of justice, The US campaigned to weaken and undermine the court. "(1) By joining the US would forge its own get-out-of-jail free card. Similar to contention 1, It simply wouldn"t be implemented in a good way, And would only cause great controversy. 3. Alternative to ICC-- punish American war crimes under American law The other biggest contention against the Pro case is that the ICC is totally unnecessary. Were war crimes in various instances committed by the US government? Almost certainly. "Tribunal members unanimously found the United States "guilty on all charges""(3) for various war crimes in the International War Crimes Tribunal's second session in 1967. One of the them said "Russell often stated that he was inspired by the Nuremberg trials"(3) for his accusations against the USA in this case. But, The government has generally covered this kind of stuff up. To make war-criminals pay for their actions we need more domestic, Not international, Policy and pressure. By electing the right people, Doing court cases domestically is way less of a headache and is much more easily implementable. Domestic judicial reformation is the only real viable way to seek justice against American war criminals. I support this author's call for accountability when talking about US crimes in Operation Condor. ". . . That is the kind of reckoning we need in this country. It started with the release of a summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the CIA"s torture program, Which brought many brutal details into the light. But that"s just the beginning. We would need a full and public accounting not just of the CIA's activities, But of the doings of other military and civilian agencies and outfits, Including the Joint Special Operations Command. " (4) By pulling more out to light like Edward Snowden, It"s possible to make this an issue, Then produce the political clout needed to form effective judicial reform. (1)"https://www. Globalpolicy. Org. . . (2)https://thehumanist. Com. . . (3)https://www. Nytimes. Com. . . (4)https://www. Thenation. Com. . . (5)https://www. Theguardian. Com. . .