You keep harping over the Cato article. It was an opinion that doesn't prove much. Are you or are you not aware that the Senate is the body which deals with treaties?
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/icc-president41102.htm
Today, April 11, 2002, the sixtieth ratification of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC) will be recorded in a ceremony at the United Nations in New York. This is a day for the world community to celebrate an historic achievement in the long struggle to advance human rights and to end genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Yet, we at Friends Committee on National Legislation are troubled that the United States will not be among the sixty ratifying countries, and we are concerned further to hear reports that you are considering removing the U.S. signature from the statute.
You have so little understanding of the issues you argue that you have once again been hoisted by your own petard. The ICC has not been affected other than the fact that the US has not agreed to the "Rome Statute."
In fact, this could change later as I stated. The Bush administration had good reasons for reversing the signature. But that doesn't change the fact that the ICC still wil exist, that Bush could still reverse himself and that the Cato piece was not proof of anything other than the Rand faction of the libertarian movement (if you can call Randians libertarians at all) agreed with Bush. Heck, the LP probably applauded his actions too.
On the other hand, in repudiating the Rome Statute, Bush gave legitimacy to the UN Security counsel. Do you disagree that the UN is communist world government?
"The Bush administration had good reasons for reversing the signature. But that doesn't change the fact that the ICC still wil exist..." - Demidog
How embarassing for you. The ICC exists because other nations likewise retain their sovereign rights to sign treaties. The ICC is chartered by those treaties and valid on the sovereign soil of those signatory nations.
As a nation that respects national sovereignty, clearly there is nothing that we would want to do to change the rights of other nations to involve themselves in their own mutual treaties.
But the U.S. is NOT a part of the ICC due to Bush (contrary to your claims), and not only that, but Bush has convinced other nations to even grant exceptions to the ICC (for Americans - e.g. soldiers vacationing) for Americans while we are visiting those sovereign soils on which ICC treaties are valid.
Sure, the ICC exists, but it isn't valid in America and Bush has furthermore obtained exemptions for Americans even while in those countries which have signed onto the ICC treaties.