Except that we don't have the problem with ICC when it benefits us. If they rule against our interest we declare "that doesn't apply to us." Well, fine then, Germany should have declared "Nuremberd trials don't apply to us", Serbia should have said "Milosevic's trial doesn't apply to us." and so on.
The reason ICC exists it so enforce human rights abuses and crimes against humanity. These are perpetraited by terrorist states that use fear and intimidation around the world without any regard to human life. It seems to me there is a need for ICC today just like there was a need for it after WWII.
I remember Noam Chomsky saying something like "An argument whose validity depends on who is using it is merely an attempt at justification without any substance", and that seems a lot like what we're seeing here.
As I said before, I think the entire concept of war crimes in nebulous and if there is any enforcement it should be done by country affected.
The other objection: ...implies that the Court does not have the power to try Americans for crimes committed on U.S. territory.
Is it not in Congress' power to grant jurisdiction to a court?
Edit: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
1. If a person commits heinous crimes in their country then it is up to their country to handle it.
2. If the crimes are committed in another country it up to that country to handle it.
There is no need for the ICC except to lend legitimacy to illegitimate claims.
I agree though, I can't believe that other countries are willing to hand over data of their citizens that should be protected by them.