I suspect that most Americans don’t think about it all or just presume it’s no big deal.
Those who do think about it are convinced that the ICC is seriously flawed and prone to deception and abuse by a host of anti-American interests and groups. Again, without having read this particular book, the author likely agrees with such thinking and wants his audience to think so too.
Some reasoning behind such thinking includes:
· The U.S. government alone reserves the right to establish where U.S. service personnel can be brought before any court, especially in politically motivated cases.
· The absence of an agreeable process determining when national courts are demonstrably unable or unwilling to prosecute a matter so that the International Criminal Court should take on such cases.
· A lack of faith in the current safeguards to protect against frivolous or unwarranted prosecutions.
· The lack of confidence that said safeguards are applied conscientiously.
The U.S. Military is extremely protective about the rights and privileges it guarantees to those who serve. It is very jealous about the processes for prosecution of its members in all combat operations situations. The U.S. Military itself instead of Viet Namese authorities prosecuted William Calley for the 1968 My Lai Massacre. Sufficient evidence existed that Bowe Bergdahl had deserted in a warzone prior to the Talibani prisoner exchange for his return. Should Bergdahl be found guilty, its paramount to the U.S. Defense Department that his punishment be according to the UCMJ, not the Taliban (or anyone else).
To your original point, it’s not a matter of common knowledge among most Americans but rather one of general disinterest. Most American civilians just never think about military jurisprudence and the ICC. American service personnel who do think about it demand and expect the protections of the U.S. Constitution which they swore to protect and defend when they enlisted. I hope this helps answer your questions.
