[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
It's not an entity of the Netherlands government in any respect.
As far as the actual country of Netherlands goes, the United States and that country have a standard extradition treaty, as the US does with most countries that have a reasonable court system that protects the rights of the accused.
The US views the ICC as an illegitimate kangaroo court that does not meet the minimum standards for such protection, and thus does not recognize it any more than it would recognize, say, a terrorist-run "Islamic court". If such "courts" grab US citizens and put them "on trial", then, yeah, they shouldn't be surprised when US Navy SEALs coming crashing through their windows. That wouldn't make it an "invasion" of the country where the "court" was located, but something more akin to a hostage rescue mission.
No, it doesn't, which is why it makes referrals to the ICC. The US just believes that the US, uniquely, should not be subject to any external accountability, because it uniquely can be trusted to hold its own war criminals accountable without such external fallback.
Yes, actually, it does.
https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/23428.htm
In part: "We object, however, to the investigation or prosecution of our citizens by the ICC, whose jurisdiction we have not consented to and which lacks necessary safeguards to ensure against politically motivated investigations and prosecutions."
Read the whole thing.
No way the US threatened troops into the Netherlands, and the Dutch would have never capitulated. At all.
All of Western Europe would join in.
The best I can figure is the US threatened to extract someone in an op. That's not invasion, and even that seems hard to buy.
So link please. And to a real news source, not some guy going on about it on tiktok or youtube, or a blog by a random person.
I'm a Canuck, but you need to call a thing what it is.
For example, sanctions could be something done as part of this bill. Arresting a Dutch person on US soil.
You may not like this bill, and I personally don't have much of an opinion on it, but it does not say "arrest and we will immediately invade and blow up cities and take control of your entire nation". It isn't even directed at the Netherlands directly, instead the court, wherever that may be now or in the future.
Saying "The threatened to invade" is an effort to put the worst possible spin on it. And without context, it makes it sound like this happened 2 weeks ago, such as "The US moved a carrier group to the coast of the Netherlands, and they're threatening to invade!"
The only way I would accept language like "threatened to invade" would be if it was actually threatened.
All EU countries bend their backs when US say so.
You don't have permission to access "http://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/american-is-charged..." on this server.
Reference #18.4ff01602.1701774868.1c0af8dc"""
(Why is it redirecting to http?)
It worked...at what, exactly? I mean, leaving aside whether what was in question was actually a threat, I don't see that it has had any substantive effect on the policy either of the Netherlands or of the particular international institution headquartered in The Hague that that was its subject, so I don't see how it can be described as working like a charm, except as a piece of US domestic propaganda (which was its real purpose, of course.)