If you read the bill, which is in surprisingly clear english for something from congress, it states why and what are it's extents.

The ICC is based upon the Rome charter. America (President Clinton) signed the Rome charter with stipulations that it not be ratified until changes were made. The House and Senate have never ratified the charter therefore America has not agreed to this treaty. However, the Rome charter states that it can enforce the will of the charter, primarily the ICC, on a country even if they have not agreed to the treaty. This violates and country's sovereign rights who is not a signatory of the charter. Secondarily the charter says that the ICC can determine who in a multinational force is subject to an international trial. This violates the UN charter which states that their judicial committee has sole responsibility for determining who has committed international crimes and has the sole right for form international courts and tribunals. The Rome charter also denies some of the basic rights guaranteed to Americans by the Bill of Rights which violates our constitutionally protected rights. The final objection is that the ICC could decide to prosecute those in charge rather than, or as well as, those involved. Therefore it is very feasible that the rulers of a nation could be held responsible for the actions of their soldiers in the field when serving in a multi-national force.

By common agreement treaties cannot affect nations that do not agree to them. Wars have been fought over this in the past. The Netherlands fought England because Britain impressed their sailors and stole their ships under the rights granted to them by a treaty with France and Spain. America fought a war with England because of (or at least used as an excuse) the same practice of impressment. America rightfully has not signed this treaty that would violate our own constitution. The bill makes clear that enforcement of this treaty on the sovereignty of America will not be allowed and could cause America to withdraw forces from any UN or Multi-national conflict where the Rome charter is not waived.

It also makes provisions for Americans held and tried by the charter which include funding, legal aid, provision of defense attorneys, political pressure, and sanctions against countries supporting the violation of American sovereignty. It does not include provision for military force, bribes, or the use of illegal activities. Then it further weakens even the threat of sanctions by listing all closely allied countries as exempt (including NATO which includes the Netherlands).

Therefore America, IMO, has done everything to protect allies and alliances while trying to protect the rights of her citizens.

In many ways I agree with 4MH that America seems to be the most hated country in the world. We have a love hate relationship with many nations. I would ask people to look at the ramifications of continuing to push America towards isolationism. How long will the UN survive if America withdraws all funding and support? How much aid does America give to all nations. Many do not rely on it like some of the 2nd and 3rd world nations do but almost every nation in the world gets some money from us. I believe it would be devastating if a rise in isolationism grew too much in America. Not just to the world but to us as well. I can understand how many things America does could be seen as arrogant and bullying by other countries. I also understand that every nation that has acheived "superpower" status has been blamed and criticized for the same attitude (17th and 18th Century Britain, 18th Century France, 16th Century Sweden, all the way back to the Sumerians). When you feel like you are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position your tendency is to withdraw and feel resentful. I would hate for America to withdraw but I can see the movement rising here. Even I get sick of feeling like my country, which I love just as much as you all love your countries, seemingly being blamed for everything.

So if these guys want to patrol the beach, fine let them, we have more than our fair share of nuts and reactionaries in America to have any right to be upset about them in other countries. However, if you expect us to let the other nations of the world pre-empt the very principals that this nation was founded on then I certainly hope you understand that if we attack you we won't be attacking allies. Fortunately I believe the situation would have to deteriorate far more than we are even close to for this to become a remote possibility. My preference would be for the Rome charter to be fixed so America could be in agreement with the other signatories.

Neel, about fortifications on the dutch beach. Why? Who would you be protected from? Singapore had the best fortifications in the world and Japan bypassed them by coming down the peninsula. The Maginot line, the Hindenburgh line, Corregidor, Iraq's line in the sand, if history tells us one thing about modern warfare it is that it is better to have defenses that are dynamic rather than static. However if you want your government to spend a lot of money for nothing at least encourage them to make the forts impressive so they look good in pictures. I love impressive looking forts