If it has to get to the Hague, there were drastic failures earlier. The US has a right to a speedy and public trial, and needs to put its money where its mouth is (or was).

>and needs to put its money where its mouth is (or was).

Unwillingness to practice what you preach when people you don't like benefit is a huge problem with all sorts of institutions in the US and will not get better at least not for a generation or two. Broad acceptance of double standards is a necessary part of the currently depending ideological divide so we basically need to wait until the people peddling that are out of the workforce.

Is this the same speedy and public trial that the gitmo detainees got?

No, good God no! There are a ton of conservative voters who loathed the Dubya administration, and I'm one of them. But you have to understand, that's what created Trump, especially as Democrats doubled down on social issues.

> There is a certain court in The Hague that tends to have an opinion on such matters. But the US seems to think they shouldn't be held accountable when it comes to international law or human rights.. ("The Hague Invasion Act").

International law isn't really law in the sense we're used to. There is no world government. International relations are anarchic, and the "international law" that's binding on a country is pretty much what it agrees to abide by or can be forcibly compelled to abide by (through military action, etc).

Funny thing is that Obama asked the Netherlands to take some ex Gitmo prisoners. The Dutch government politely declined to fix his problems knowing full well the legal minefield.