Excellent. Thanks for the pointer, I'll go and read the article and see if I have anything to add.
I am of course, coming from a ROW perspective...

1. I am happy to see that once again the American people are more sensible than the Bush administration, in that a majority of Americans polled agree with the idea of the US being part of and subject to the ICC.
2. "Specifically, the ICC is an organization whose precepts go against fundamental American notions of sovereignty, checks and balances, and national independence. It is an agreement that is harmful to the national interests of the United States, and harmful to our presence abroad."
This is interesting. The ICC could only be harmful to the national and international interests of any country if that country reserves the right to trangress against international law in its own national interest. Ahem.
3. The very idea of the ICC is to ensure that countries can be held accountable despite or over their declared national interest. All dictators, for example, declare their policies to be in the national interest. The idea of the ICC is to be able to hold a Hitler, a Pinochet, a Stalin, a Mao, accountable to humanity, even if they have rendered themselves immune from prosecution within their own state.
4. "Without sufficient protection against such frivolous charges, responsible officials may be deterred from carrying out a wide range of legitimate functions across the spectrum, from actions integral to our national defense to peacekeeping missions or interventions in humanitarian crises or civil wars..." I don't think charges of war crimes against the President or Vice President are frivolous. The US under this administration has carried out atrocities including torture, and has invaded another sovereign state for no decent reason. As I said, all criminals in a position of national govt think themselves above the law. The POINT of the ICC is that they be accountable to someone. The prosecutor is not 'unaccountable", s/he is accountable to the UN. The US has recently shown itself, under the present administration, to consider itself above the UN.
5. It is an abiding myth within this country that it undertakes peach-keeping missions around the world and is a guardian of world peace, whereas outside the US, the country is widely seen as violent, agressive and self-interested. I see the US position in this article reflects the myth, by claiming that the US foreign military invovlement is primarily altruistic. To which I say B<coughcoughcough>T.
6. " This could lead the ICC to deem actions taken by the U.S. to be inadequate and to prosecution of U.S. persons by the ICC." Yes. Exhibit A: Guantanamo Bay.
7. The State Department states that the Rome Statute creates a self-initiating prosecutor, answerable to no state or institution other than the Court itself." This is a valid point. But I think it is vastly less likely that the prosecutor would prosecute for his/her own ends than that an individual liable to be prosecuted would think him or herself above the law by virtue of being a dictator or of having absolute power.
8."Critics argue that the court could undermine the work of the United Nations Security Council, which is charged with maintaining peace and security between nations. " Yes, well, from the nation that does this all the time, this is clearly a bogus argument. The US overrides the UN all the time, and has done so notably in the war against Iraq.
9. In as far as the rest is concerned I note that in the main, the Democrats want the US in and the GOP does not. Quel surprise.