[The_Victor]

It has ruled, for example, that British law permitting the spanking of children somehow violates the European Convention on Human Rights' prohibition against "torture" and "degrading treatment." Obviously the Convention -- drafted in the aftermath of World War II -- was intended to limit the systematic abuses of governments, not the disciplinary discretion of parents. But the tendency of judges over time is to amass whatever power they can get away with, a danger all the more pronounced in any legal system not directly accountable to national governments....

And we thought we had a problem with activist judges....

[libstripper]

The really sinister thing about this, and the ICC, is there's no real limit to the ICC's jurisdiction. So far all the argument has been about American soldiers and officials possibly being prosecuted , an entirely proper point. However, if British law permitting spanking can be overturned, what about American law allowing the use of lethal force in self defense and thee Second Amendment? A really horrible scenario that could occur is if the ICC were ever adopted by the U.S., one of us could legally and legitimately kill a home invader who needed killing and be prosecuted before the ICC because no American court with jurisdiction would allow the prosecution.