Talk:American Service-Members' Protection Act

Untitled
Surely for the ICC to be both fair and effective, all peoples should be subject to the court itself. I don't see how having such an Act to provide Americans with immunity helps the ICC's credibility or indeed the American's respect and responsibility in times of war.


 * For the ICC to be fair and effective is not America's responsibility or problem. Americans that commit war crimes have been and are dealt with by American military justice.


 * Non-Americans might argue that this is only the official propaganda line of the American military, and that recent examples seem to indicate that this happens only in cases of major international outrage. -- Marcika 16:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The most fundamental issue isn't even about whether the US is policing itself properly - the fact is that the way it behaves helps set a lead globally, and wilfully undermining international law and cooperation in the pursuit of justice is hardly a Christian thing to do. Rd232 21:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is not a general discussion board - if there isn't a specific point about how the article should be changed/developed, let's leave this discussion. Rd232 21:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So who's included?
The article mentions that the weapon embargo includes ICC signatories, but excludes
 * NATO members
 * Australia
 * Israel
 * Taiwan
 * Major non-NATO allies
 * Countries which entered into an agreement with the United States

So who's left? It seems rather pointless, if Mongolia, Switzerland and Tajikistan are the only non-African countries that ASPA allows the embargo of weapons-trade to... Ojw 21:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

International reaction to the ASPA
I think such a section may be worthwile to add to this article. Being from the Netherlands myself, I remember the enacting of this American law caused quite a stir here, even leading to people digging trenches or making little forts around The Hague to protect from the "impending american invasion" to free Americans from the ICC. I don't suppose that needs to go in this article, but some mentioning of the international reaction to this law may be required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.154.51 (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It probably should go in the article, since this act clearly caused a stir in the Netherlands due to its provision for the USA to launch unilateral military operations there to spring Americans from custody. The version of this article in the Dutch Wikipedia has a bit more about this, and there appears to have been an organisation (Volksfront van Hogerhand, but I can't read much Dutch) set up to protest the law. Could someone please look at the Dutch sources and add relevant and referenced information to this article about reaction in the Netherlands and elsewhere in the world, where there was quite a bit of outrage at this shining example of American arrogance. 85.189.221.65 (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The link to the Dutch article is: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act


 * Hypothetical here, but if the USA was to invade the Hauge, would it then have to decleare war on itself? After all, an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries. Both the USA and the Netherlands are members of NATO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.103.253 (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is why American should be banned from the NATO. But this aside and focus on the article. I shall look into this and post a few Reactions in a week or two about this matter. -CK- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.98.232.110 (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is ironic that the Netherlands is the oldest ally of the US (John Adams served as the first American ambassador in history, stationed in The Hague in the first American embassy between 1782 and 1788) and yet we Dutch are threatened with invasion just for hosting the ICJ. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 23:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hague Invasion Act
Could we add somewhere some context around the common name of this act? 47.55.204.91 (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)