Given the use of the Hague to put the stamp of approval on Euro-US military intervention in the Balkans and elsewhere, one rather wishes that other countries would take America's lead, and undertake to liberate those jailed by this kangaroo court, by force of arms.
(Incidentally to its underlying raison d'etre as imperialist victor's justice, the standards of evidence and rights accorded the accused at the Hague are grotesquely low: many Serb and Croatian soldiers were jailed not just on hearsay, but hearsay of hearsay evidence.)
In message <B809B555.B4EA%gna at duke.edu>, Gary Ashwill <gna at duke.edu>
writes
>From Al-Ahram
>
>http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/558/4war1.htm
>
>(snip)
>
>Meanwhile, the US State Department -- taking advantage of the
>frenzy and confusion that followed the terrorist acts -- endorsed the
>American Service-members Protection Act (ASPA) on November 5. The
>legislation authorises the US to use force to "liberate" any US or allied
>persons detained on behalf of the proposed International Criminal Court
>(ICC), which will be based in The Hague, Netherlands. It also prohibits US
>military assistance to those states that ratify the ICC treaty except for
>NATO members and some major non-NATO allies.
>
>The New York based Human Rights Watch described the new law as an attempt to
>undermine the establishment of a permanent war crimes court. "The United
>States is forging a global coalition against terrorism, and the State
>Department has just endorsed a bill that authorises an invasion of the
>Netherlands," said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice
>Programme at HRW. "This makes no sense. It hardly seems like a good moment
>for the US to be threatening sanctions against dozens of countries simply
>because they want to bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes against
>humanity."
>
-- James Heartfield