there are risks only because your G.U.I.L.T.Y. http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/lcp64dWinter2001p167.htm "The Rome Statute's two other offenses, crimes against humanity and war crimes,14 are even vaguer, as is the real risk that an activist court and prosecutor can broaden the language of the terms essentially without limit.15 It is precisely this risk that has led our Supreme Court to invalidate state and federal criminal statutes that fail to give adequate notice of exactly what they prohibit under the "void for vagueness" doctrine. Unfortunately, "void for vagueness" is largely an American shield for civil liberties. A fair reading of the treaty, for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.16 This is intolerable and unacceptable. The list of ambiguities goes on and on. How will these vague phrases be interpreted? Who will advise a President that he is unequivocally safe from the retroactive imposition of criminal liability if he guesses wrong? Is even the defensive use of nuclear weapons a criminal violation? We are nowhere near the end of the list of prospective "crimes" that can be added to the statute. Many were suggested at Rome and commanded wide support from participating nations. The most popular was the crime of "aggression," which was included in the statute but not defined.17 Although frequently easy to identify, "aggression" can at times be something in the eye of the beholder. Thus, Israel justifiably feared in Rome that its preemptive strike in the Six-Day War almost certainly would have provoked a proceeding against top [*pg 171] Israeli officials. Moreover, there is no doubt that Israel will be the target of a complaint concerning conditions and practices by the Israeli military in the West Bank and Gaza. The United States, with continuous bipartisan support for many years, has attempted to minimize the disruptive role that the United Nations has all too often played in the Middle East peace process. We do not now need the ICC interjecting itself into extremely delicate matters at inappropriate times. Israel, therefore, was one of the few governments that voted with the United States against the statute. "