MR. GEDE: Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies and the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on National Security Law, welcome to a timely and informative program on the International Criminal Court, posing the question, the U.S. Response to the International Criminal Court: What’s next. I’m Tom Gede, Chair of the Federalist Society’s Criminal Law and Procedure Practice Group and will open the program and moderate the first panel. My day job is as Executive Director of the Western State Attorneys General, and I previously served as a deputy and special assistant attorney general in the California Attorney General’s Office. Two practice groups of the Federalist Society are presenting today’s program, the Criminal Law and Procedure Practice Group and the International Law Practice Group. The program is in two parts. Panel 1 will explore whether or not the International Criminal Court will provide adequate procedural and structural safeguards, and Panel 2 will be moderated by Stuart Baker and will discuss whether the International Criminal Court can be effective on the world stage. As you know, the Federalist Society does not take positions on issues, but merely provides an opportunity for debate and discussion on key legal, constitutional and policy issues. By way of a very general background, you may know that in July 1998, nations attending the Diplomatic Conference in Rome adopted a Statute for the International Criminal Court, which we all call the ICC, independent from the United Nations, which will have its seat in the Hague and will have jurisdiction over individuals who commit genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. The United States voted against the Statute, citing concerns over sovereignty, jurisdiction and due process.