The United States can't have it both ways. It is not in this country's best interests to undermine the establishment of an international criminal court even as officials advocate the prosecution of some of the world's most notorious thugs. The United States seems to recognize the need for such a tribunal, yet sides with such bad bedfellows as Iraq, Libya and China in opposing it. There is no way to grant the United States such an exemption and not open loopholes for the likes of Saddam Hussein and others. President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright argue that the court could be used against the United States by those who disagree with its foreign policy.
Many points poke holes in that nervous reasoning.
The treaty clearly defines the extreme type of crime the court could prosecute against individuals. Crimes would not be prosecuted in the international criminal court if the nation in which the act occurred sought to investigate or prosecute the offense by its own rules, in its own justice system. The international court is meant as a court of last resort for large-scale assaults on populations. Its purpose is not to supplant national court systems or to be used by nations to gain revenge against other nations. Clinton and Albright have recent history to soothe their worries.