Doug, there's a very simple reason for the US opposing an international court. It's not that the US doesn't trust the rest of the world to give Americans a fair trial, it's that the US (a) still has senior politicians who can be held accountable for war crimes in Vietnam, and (b) could be held responsible for propping up regimes who are busy committing crimes against humanity (eg. Iraq and Israel). If anyone can show that the Reagan administration knew Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds and Marsh Arabs whilst the US was providing him with the equipment to do it, things could get real interesting for a lot of American politicians.

It certainly puts the US into an interesting group though, doesn't it? Who opposes impartial trials for war crimes? well, Russia, China, the Arab states, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, anywhere else where you can be tortured by the police and "disappeared"... and the US. Marvellous.

Certainly there are American courts. However, they've not been conspicuously enthusiastic in their actions, and they have no jurisdiction to prevent the President or other senior officials from taking action either to authorise crimes against humanity or to assist those who do. It's simply not in their remit, and being countrymen of these officials they are unlikely to oppose them.

I'd go so far to say that an American could never receive a fair trial in the US if convicted of crimes against humanity - no matter what the evidence, he'd either be found not guilty or get off with little/no penalty. This isn't a criticism of the US specifically - the same holds true for every country. Only independent courts can do the job properly without bias towards their countrymen.

Graham.