Fact check: The United States knows better then to join the ICC as the organization would immediately turn on them the moment America sacrificed the smallest part of our judicial autonomy.

1. Summary of the results

The original statement's claim about the ICC immediately turning against the US is not supported by the available evidence. Expert analysis suggests a more nuanced reality where both risks and benefits exist. John Washburn argues that while immediate ratification is unlikely, gradual engagement could serve US interests ^[1]. The ICC has publicly indicted 67 people with 34 ongoing cases, demonstrating its role as a functioning international judicial body rather than an anti-US institution ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial pieces of context are missing from the original statement:

• The ICC has specific procedures and limitations on its jurisdiction, rather than arbitrary power to override national judicial systems ^[3]
• There are ongoing investigations in regions like Afghanistan and Palestine that could affect US interests, showing legitimate policy considerations beyond simple opposition ^[4]
• The US has demonstrated existing commitments to international justice while maintaining specific concerns about ICC jurisdiction over US service members ^[4]
• Expert Jeremy Rabkin raises legitimate concerns about the ICC's effectiveness and potential moral hazards, showing that opposition isn't solely about fear of persecution ^[1]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The statement contains several misleading elements:

• It presents a false dichotomy between complete judicial autonomy and complete submission, whereas experts suggest more nuanced approaches are possible ^[1]
• The claim about "immediate" targeting of the US is contradicted by expert analysis showing that the ICC's design and purpose is to hold the worst human rights violators accountable, not to target specific nations ^[3]
• The statement ignores potential benefits that multiple sources identify, including strengthened US leadership and commitment to international justice ^[5]

Those benefiting from promoting this narrative might include:

• Military and security establishment figures concerned about potential investigations
• Nationalist political groups using fear of international institutions to promote isolation
• Opposition groups in countries currently under ICC investigation who might want to discourage US participation

Conversely, human rights organizations and international justice advocates would benefit from challenging this narrative, as they argue US participation would strengthen global justice mechanisms ^[4].