International Criminal Court

The United States has made promoting and protecting human rights and the punishment for those individuals that abuse these rights a cornerstone of its foreign policy. Americans acknowledge the need to prosecute individuals who perpetrate the most heinous crimes anywhere in the world.
At the end of the 20th century, one of the bloodiest in human history, the international community adopted a treaty creating the world’s first independent and permanent court to investigate and prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity – the International Criminal Court (ICC). This court will act only if national courts are destroyed or unable to handle the case, or are deliberately shielding the accused from justice.
President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Treaty near the end of his term in office. Bush then reversed our nation’s policy in regards to the ICC.
In January 2005, McCain came out in favor of the United States joining the court, when he said, “I want us in the ICC.” This comment came at The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Since his “I want us in the ICC” comment, McCain has not repeated such a sweeping statement in regards to the United States joining the Court. In 2006, however, McCain did urge that the U.S. cooperate in support of the Court’s Darfur investigation. “U.S. and allied intelligence assets, including satellite technology, should be dedicated to record any atrocities that occur in Darfur so that future prosecutions can take place,” he said. “We should publicly remind Khartoum that the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes in Darfur and that Sudanese leaders will be held personally accountable for attacks on civilians.”
Obama said in his questionnaire that it’s “premature to commit” to signing the Rome treaty.
“Now that it is operational, we are learning more and more about how the ICC functions. The Court has pursued charges only in cases of the most serious and systemic crimes and it is in America’s interests that these most heinous of criminals, like the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur, are held accountable. These actions are a credit to the cause of justice and deserve full American support and cooperation. Yet the Court is still young, many questions remain unanswered about the ultimate scope of its activities, and it is premature to commit the U.S. to any course of action at this time.
“The United States has more troops deployed overseas than any other nation and those forces are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden in the protecting Americans and preserving international security. Maximum protection for our servicemen and women should come with that increased exposure. Therefore, I will consult thoroughly with our military commanders and also examine the track record of the Court before reaching a decision on whether the U.S. should become a State Party to the ICC.”
Obama’s former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power said in an early March interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.
“Until we’ve closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.
“If Barack Obama ratified the ICC or announced his support for it on day one, two things would happen. One, it would have the chance of discrediting the ICC in the short term, and two, he would so strain his relations with the U.S. military that it would actually be very hard to recover. There’s a whole lot of internal diplomacy, internal conversations about sovereignty and so forth that have to be had before you can think about that.”

Tigerhawk has a post about the ICC which reinforces the inherent political nature of any organization like this. “Politics and the International Criminal Court”
While I think it is true the leftist of the left would enjoy seeing Bush tortured in the court of world opinion, actual rational consideration may temper the democrat position on the ICC.
It appears his reluctance to join may be driven by his support of the ICC (I’m against it so I can be for it), and because the military establishment may not like him, not because of the harm they might suffer.
I still think it’s inevitable that Obama would support participation in the ICC.

Participation in the ICC may have lasting repercussions for US foreign policy, whether or not it’s used as a game of ‘gotcha’ against Bush.

ICC’s jurisdiction will only be triggered if the country of the accused is found to be “unwilling or unable” to prosecute

The left will revel in this as much as impeachment. While it is unlikely Bush would ever stand trial, the left can enjoy the spectacle while the democrats can feign innocence.

Such things will always cause Senators and Congressmen to manipulate things for their own fashions. Impeachment, by a vote of Congress, at least rewards people who have the courage to vote down or up for the President. It clears his name, in one fashion or another.

Without impeachment or with impeachment by the popular vote, you will always have kangaroo courts going on in the background.

Back in my military days, there was a joke about the what difference might be between the Army and the Boy Scouts.

The Boy Scouts, you see, had adult supervision.