Could you paraphrase and rewrite political discussion?

The United States can perfectly better serve its security interests, under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and subject itself to the constraints of international law, provided that the aggressions of the International Criminal Court are limited to cases approved by the Security Council of the United Nations. This would effectively protect the United States against a possible prosecution while it would allow to control, through its veto in the Security Council, other prosecutions. Otherwise the United States would fall under a double standard, when they seek to control the behavior of other Governments, without accepting the corresponding limitations of their own conduct.

  Serious violations of human rights and war crimes committed during the Second World War demonstrated the need to implement mechanisms to prosecute those responsible for these atrocities. In this way, the international community decided back then to create tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo, formed by both in the first step towards the consolidation of international criminal justice. The Cold War prevented the establishment of an International Criminal Court of a permanent nature, a difficulty that would be extended until the end of the 1980's, with the fall of the Berlin wall, a possibility was newly opened by creating a court with universal jurisdiction for the most serious cases of violation of human rights and international humanitarian law, which was accentuated with the humanitarian crises that occurred by the civil wars in Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

The ICC formed by 120 States adopted in 1998, the Rome Statute, is the first international jurisdiction with universal vocation and aspiration; competent to prosecute individuals for crimes of war, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. Added to these serious crimes, at the request of the Court itself, were sexual offenses, torture as an illegal instrument of war and the elimination of "receiving a higher order", as a valid defense of criminal responsibility or liability. It should be emphasized that the ICC is a complementary body of the national jurisdiction, and is only competent in cases where the state cannot or does not want to prosecute the accused. However, the United States did not ratify it, and even withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute and proceeded to begin a campaign against the ICC.

The ICC has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of the Statute which was the first of July 2002, and the Court may only exercise its jurisdiction if the State on whose territory the crime in question has occurred, or the State of nationality of the accused of the crime, is part of the Rome Statute, and if not being so, agrees to accept such jurisdiction by expressing declaration. As we said ut supra the United States did not sign the Rome Statute, with which the ICC has no jurisdiction over its nationals. The signatory states pledged to fulfill this commitment and allow the control, prevention and repression against any injury to the fundamental rights of people. Washington struggles to immunize the prosecution of war crimes by U.S. citizens, and is in fact, doing everything possible to achieve this.

  It is important to clarify that the crimes under the Court's jurisdiction do not prescribe. The ICC can only impose maximum penalties of 30 years in prison and, of exceptional form, life imprisonment if the extreme gravity of the case warrants it, but can never condemn to death. However, United States move increasingly away from the International Criminal Court.

  The Bush administration was heavily concerned about the possible prosecution of its military, by the ICC, since the high command of the North American military, responsible for the Iraq war, committed the crime of "aggression", which is punishable by the International Criminal Court. Even former President George W. Bush himself would be responsible, for it was he who gave the order to attack and invade Iraq. We must remember that on top of the illegal invasion by U.S. troops in Iraq, U.S. used arguments that were based on false information, so beside of the economical interest, it was a simple brutal act of foreign aggression. As we must know, "Aggression" is defined by the Rome Statute, such as; the use of the armed forces by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any way that disagrees with the Charter of the United Nations.

  The U.S. Government often violates the sovereignty of other countries on the grounds and arguments that violations of human rights are occurring in them. At the same time, it frequently supports the international prosecution of leaders of other countries accused of committing war crimes. All the while, it seems not to realize that what one preaches for others, must preach for oneself.Despite its enormous power, United States was in evidence, since their invasion of Iraq violated the statutes of the United Nations. This opened a potential prosecution for war crimes.

That is the crux of the matter, because the United States applies at odd behavior with international law, with its own laws and then present itself to the world as the guarantor of security and that before them, any measure is necessary, possible and applicable, but not to others: It is the manifested destiny so present in American politics and that has caused so much damage to humanity. The policy of double standards practiced by the American administrations has begun to be unveiled in all its hypocrisy after the allegations made by the former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and former contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA), Edward Joseph Snowden and that is representing a major shift in the field of international relations. For these reasons, every day it becomes harder to defend the foreign policy of the United States throughout the world. The setbacks, inconsistencies and double standards have led U.S. to lose credibility around the world.

There are numerous of publications which question the long history of the United States with links to state terrorism, giving indisputable signs of the bloody war in Viet Nam, the secessionist raids against the newly-installed African republics or confrontations to the Central American revolutions. Many Latin American countries that ended under the cruel military dictatorships, trained by the U.S. embassies, met organized and funded terrorism by Washington. Noriega in Panama was one of the many examples of this. The use of the unmanned aircraft known as drones became a symbol of provocation and an arrogant display of power by the United States against Arab countries and the Middle East, ignoring their national sovereignty and as a result, leaving an unnecessary slaughter of innocents. With these practices, Washington is establishing a dangerous international precedent by sending drones to kill their enemies. No one is above the law.

Works Cited:

Ross, Matthew. "Generation Apocalypse Now: The Vietnam War's Cultural Legacy In The Global War On Terror." Journal Of American Culture 36.4 (2013): 342-352. Academic Search Premier. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.

WALLACE-WELLS, BENJAMIN. "The TRULY PARANOID STYLE In AMERICAN POLITICS." New York 46.37 (2013): 30.MasterFILE Premier. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.

Vallet, Élisabeth. "The U.S. Decision-Making Process And Conspiracy Theories." Conference Papers -- International Studies Association (2008): 1-13. Academic Search Premier. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.