Strictly speaking, it is evident that the United States has no intention of invading to liberate anyone incarcerated at the Hague. On the other hand, historically, wars have been started on weaker pretenses. What is measured as appropriate has a way of changing.
As to letter and intent of the bill, I must concur with Rook. On the other hand, K9 has struck directly to the humor in this needless effort of Congress in regards to our sovereignty. It is fascinating to suppose that anyone would be imprisoned and have it not be "against that person's will". This is a broad attack directly against the jurisdiction and authority of the court. If the intent of the DeLay Amendment was really to protect U.S. military personnel on U.N. Peacekeeping missions, then the amendment should just say so - by being so vague it throws our entire relationship with the court into a realm of doubt. The U.S. undermines the court anytime it involves U.S. citizens in any way, and then we expect it to act with authority when we want it to.
And if the problem is the U.N. and peacekeeping itself, rather than the court... Nigeria has had over 2,000 casualties over the last 10 years serving peacekeeping and spent over $7 billion in that time span. Quite impressive for a politically unstable state. Embarassing really, given the complaining that the U.S. Congress regularly carries out.
Sadly, we inch ever closer to isolationism.