The Trial of Henry Kissinger

Rating:
Summary: Self-Defeating
Review: "The Trial Of Henry Kissinger", by Christopher Hitchens does have merit. However the author is so consumed with his hatred for his subject that whatever arguments he puts forward he weakens by his complete lack of personal distance. This is certainly not a scholarly piece of historical writing. The work is very brief for the historical record it attempts to cover, it is devoid of the most basic of footnotes, and finally when an author's source is claimed to be in the possession of the author with no other corroboration, credibility is stretched if not lost.

Objectivity becomes an issue when the title is read. The book's dedication, "For the Brave victims of Henry Kissinger", and in the Preface the author states the book is written, "by a political opponent of Henry Kissinger". That the author feels the need to state his personal feelings after the title and the dedication, does not suggest he places much value on his reader's grasp of the obvious.

Mr. Kissinger is certainly a figure that can provoke strong feelings in either direction. Those authors who may loathe the man have every right to document what they see as faults in his conduct while serving the US Government or as a private citizen. However when the author is so incensed at his topic that he literally cannot restrain himself from criticizing his subject's appearance, "an odious schlump", his personal hygiene, his lack of manners at a dinner table, the titles of the subject's books, etc., whatever true merit his comments may have become burdened with histrionics. Writing that claims to set forth evidence for Mr. Kissinger's guilt and the war crimes he should be tried for, cannot take the form of a rant when reasoned argument is critical.

The author also digresses whenever some un-attributed claim will make an appearance in an effort to convince the reader that Mr. Kissinger literally deserves to be tried for the same crimes of those defendants at the first trials at Nuremberg. The author states that Mr. Kissinger "contemplated the use of nuclear weapons". Even if he did, so what? Not only is their no documentation of such, "contemplation", Mr. Kissinger was never in a position to initiate the release of nuclear weapons. I think it is reasonable to presume that a number of government officials have contemplated various acts that not only were beyond their ability to initiate, but may have taken place when emotion was exerting more control than logic.

Mr. Hitchens had the opportunity to explore how the issue of war crimes may become more frequent as the political forces of the world change. I would very much enjoy reading a work by a true historian who would follow the demands of documenting the historical record. Even now trials are taking place at The Hague for those who stand accused of crimes committed during the fighting in the former Yugoslavia.

The author could have written a thought-provoking work on the most serious of subjects, instead he offers a barely controlled diatribe against an individual. If Mr. Kissinger is or is not guilty of committing any war crimes, books such as this will do nothing to bring serious, objective attention to the matter. However many facts this book may contain the "case" against Mr. Kissinger (if there is one) has not been helped by this book. What is very clear is that Mr. Hitchens loathes Mr. Kissinger, what he fails to do is persuade the reader as his emotions bury his accusations. Anyone who may be guilty of a crime will not have to fear a courtroom based on writing such as this.

Rating:
Summary: "If Kissinger values his reputation..."
Review: (writes the Literary Review) "...then he really must sue."
If you read this book you have to come to a couple of devastating conclusions: 1.) there is an overwhelming weight of evidence here that would surely goad anyone innocent of such charges to respond through legal remedy, and yet Kissinger hasn't; (2) the fact that he hasn't must suggest that what could come out in the course of seeking such legal remedy might be more damaging than the book itself - a thought that is almost unbearable in the face of Hitchens' well-structured case. Reading this book gives me some optimism, however, simply because it HAS been written (Mr. Hitchens, if you're reading, as Sandburg said to the spider: "go on. You're doing good work.") and that Verso continues its demonstration of courage in an industry not often linked with that particular virtue. Buy this book. Think hard again about the concept of state terrorism, "rogue states" and "enemies of democracy" or any of the other banal terms regularly employed by US/UK politicians. The only thing missing here (and it is beyond the scope of this particular book, in truth), is the industrial/financial machinations that inevitably lie behind the nasty covert actions that seem always to accompany any history of US foreign policy.

Rating:
Summary: Hitchens is right, as usual
Review: ... It is particularly surprising that the claim arousing the most incredulity is the alleged sabotage of the pre-Nixon peace talks, which is almost certainly true. The far-more-moderate Larry Berman makes exactly the same claim (with a different analysis)in No Peace, No Honor a book which even conservatives (like former Reagan lackey Jack Matlock, writing recently in the New York Times Review of Books) find entirely credible.

As to Hitchens as character assassin: Certain characters, like Kissinger's, are in great need of reassessment. When one's life consists largely of extremely bad deeds done secretly in service of no good higher than one's own ambition and greed, a thorough assessment won't look very nice. Short of outright lying, there is no pretty spin one can put on secret carpet bombings, kidnapping, assassination (the murdering kind), overthrow of democratically elected leaders and a lifetime of making cozy with ruthless dicatators the world over.

The book is clearly not intended as a legal brief. As Hitchens recently stated: it is the case for the case for the prosecution, not the case itself. As such, it contains more than ample evidence to warrant further investigation. Indeed, Kissinger has already been served a summons in Paris to be a witness regarding crimes perpetrated in Chile. Summons have been issued in Argentina and Chile as well. So far Dr. K, with the assistance of the US State Dept., has assiduously resisted taking the stand, even though he is not even on trial. What is he so afraid of?

For those still making up their minds about the book, you should notice that those who dimiss Hitchens claims make no factual counter-claims, but instead offer puffy pseudo-expert dismissal. This is even true of Kissinger himself, who has yet to say publicly that anything in the book is untrue. Instead he resorted to calling Hitchens a "Holocaust denier" a claim for which Hitchens recently threatened to sue, and for which which Kissinger, by way of his lawyer, has issued a qualified retraction.

...

By their reckoning, a president is good and progressive if bad, regressive people dislike him. By extension, Hitchens is a bad writer and a bad person because he dislikes a good president who is good because, well, see above...

That the likes of Pinochet and Kissinger can no longer hide entirely from justice is perhaps the most civilizing trend in our uncivilized times. And we are indebted to anyone adding fuel to this particular fire.

Hitchens is, for all his faults, one of the all-time great living essayists (up there with Gore Vidal) and a dyed in the wool truth-teller. We should listen. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition

Rating:
Summary: Comprehesive but why is Henry Kissinger singled out? Is this
Review: a vendetta? There were many in the administration just as guilty, and this includes our elected Congress. Why Mr Hitchens, an excellent but very liberal biased (even in his new incarnation, he unreflectively labels leaders as war criminals) writer fixates on Henry K we'll never know. The peace prize was over the top though.

Rating:
Summary: Library of Congress Protects Another Criminal
Review: Although Hitchens wrote this book in order to expose the criminality of Henry Kissinger, it is of utmost importance to Library of Congress employees (as well as other librarians) to see how the institution was misused and [bad]. Really, just how can a government employee hide government papers as his own personal papers?

A bit out of date, Hitchens details on page 76 how this was done: "On leaving the State Department, Kissinger made an extraordinary bargain whereby (having first hastily trucked them for safekeeping on the Rockefeller estate at Pocantico Hills, New York) he gifted his papers to the Library of Congress, on the sole condition that they remained under seal until after his demise. However, Kissinger's friend Manuel Contreras made a mistake when he killed a United States citizen, Ronni Karpen Moffitt, in the Washington car bomb which also murdered Orlando Letelier in 1976. by late 2000, the FBI had finally sought and received subpoena power to review the Library of Congress papers, a subpoena with which Kissinger dealt only through his attorneys." I am also assuming one of Kissinger's attorneys could be listed as the General Counsel of the Library, Elizabeth Pugh.

Left out is the story of the man who took the papers under a [tricked] Deed of Gift, signed on Christmas Eve no less, between then Librarian of Congress Daniel Boorstin and Kissinger. Boorstin, a highly duplicitous man in his own right, is a former communist who named names at the McCarthy hearings. The current Librarian of Congress, right-winger James Billington, is the man who fought the FBI subpoena. Maybe that is because he later named an endowed Library of Congress chair after Kissinger?

I particularly liked Hitchens summary of just who Kissinger is on page 16: "The signature qualities were there from the [Nixon] inaugural moment: the sycophancy and the duplicity, the power worship and the absence of scruple; the empty trading of old non-friends for new non-friends. And the distinctive effects were also present: the uncounted and expendable corpses; the official and unofficial lying about the cost; the heavy and pompous pseudo-indignation when unwelcome questions were asked...It debauched the American republic and American democracy, and it levied a hideous toll of casualties on weaker and more vulnerable societies." This description goes for a lot of people in power in Washington.

One bit of work that needs to be done is to be found on page 110 and concerns the attempted assassination attempt Kissinger helped plan against Greek journalist Elias Demtracopoulos. The journalist had been very critical of the junta of generals who had taken over Greece, engaging in suppression of democracy as well as murder (and tied to Nixon and Kissinger). The index for Kissinger's papers at the Library of Congress gives this tanalizing hint about Kissinger's role: "keywords acknowledging sens moss burdick gravel re mr demetracopoulos death in athens prison due 701218." It would be nice for the Library of Congress to release those papers, would it not?

My only complaint about this book is the fact that the Library of Congress figures prominently in hiding the criminal behavior of Kissinger, yet "Library of Congress" is not to be found in the index at the back of the book.

Rating:
Summary: Like a bad case of American anthrax
Review: American publishing being what it is, I am sure that if Christopher Hitchens had wanted to write a book called *dirty deeds done dirt cheap* his publisher would think that a better theme and title would be THE TRIAL OF HENRY KISSINGER. Among those who consider Orwell one of the top writers of the 20th century because most people would consider his work more political than the stories of Kafka, the idea of war crimes is associated far more strongly with certain clandestine policies known only to Henry Kissinger and his team of nobodies than with anything that any German or Japanese general did in World War II. Hitchens devotes pages 25-30 to General Telford Taylor's book NUREMBERG AND VIETNAM, but these subjects hardly go together. The Nuremberg laws adopted in Germany under the direction of Adolph Hitler were about race, and the effort of the allies to enforce laws in Nuremberg of an entirely different nature after Germany was defeated was as ironic as American college professors trying to lecture about an ancient Greek tragedy called "Oedipus Rex.". Henry Kissinger was as likely to end up violating any open standard established by the Nazis in their attempt to achieve racial purity as American anthrax would be a bad powder to have in letters to U. S. politicians.

The most confusing thing about this book for me was the lack of a time frame which would include things at Waco, Texas, which hadn't even happened yet before Congress had abolished the right of self-defense in situations involving federal law-enforcing officers. I'm not saying that Henry Kissinger was ever, in his entire life, so lowly that he had to use his official status to try to enforce some law. There is a distinction to be made between the law itself, and anyone who is determined to use the law against you, and Henry Kissinger seems to have stayed as far from this distinction as any American official brighter than John Ashcroft would be expected to. Hitchens is far more willing to consider the possibility that "direct collusion in the murder of a democratic officer in a democratic and peaceful country" (p. 66) is a crime.

One thing I noticed, reading this book, that few others are likely to find as funny, is that certain things happened on April 22. Having a year in Vietnam, which I will always associate with law and the possibility of war crimes, I realized that the calendar was full of the possibility that any particular day might be the date on which a typical mortal might actually die. For Richard Nixon, April 22, 1994, was the date of his death, and I was struck at the time with the idea, or maybe it was just a joke, that this ought to be remembered as a great deleted expletive event. Hitchens writes about particular dates with his dramatic flair, "From his roost at Nixon's side he describes a Kissingerian moment on 15 December 1970" (p. 22) about having a "pullout right at the fall of '72 so that if any bad results follow they will be too late to affect the election." I had my own, personal interest in this timing, which seems to be far more important than any criminal intent, and nothing in the Nuremberg trials established that a war would be criminal for bad timing if it occurred during my lifetime, while I was a draftee in the U. S. Army, under my feet, over my head, or all around me.

What can we learn about April 22 from this book? "It only got better. On 22 April 1970, Haldeman reports that Nixon, following Kissinger into a National Security Council meeting on Cambodia, `turned back to me with a big smile and said "K[issinger]'s really having fun today, he's playing Bismarck." ' " (p. 37). "He was able to make a dramatic appearance on Capitol Hill on 22 April 1971, at a hearing held by Senator Edward Kennedy's Senate Subcommittee on Refugees." (p. 39). A mere year after Kissinger's " ' "fun," ' " Fred Branfman was able to show Congress and "the State Department's envoy, William Sullivan, a former ambassador to Laos . . . that Laotian society was being mutilated by ferocious aerial bombardment." (p. 39). Even after negotiating a peace agreement with three Vietnamese parties to the conflict, signed in January, 1973, and "even after the Nixon--Kissinger administration had undertaken on Capitol Hill not to intensify the raids, there was a 21 percent increase of the bombing of Cambodia in the months July-August 1973. The Air Force maps of the targeted areas show them to be, or to have been, densely populated." (p. 38). Richard Nixon lived for twenty years after this, and Kissinger might be so old now that any of this must seem like reckless activities of his younger days, when his telephone calls included messages from Nixon's drunk friend, Bebe, who might have been joking. This book has an index, and you can look up Rebozo, Bebe and see what he said.

Rating:
Summary: Indictment & Conviction
Review: An excellent little polemic from the king of controversy. Hitchens has been called a traitor to the left, and not simply for his defense of the 'war' in Afghanistan, but this should not discourage devoted leftists from reading his vitriol. Here he rakes Kissinger the way that he raked Clinton in 'No One Left To Lie To' but with more hard evidence and less vicious innuendo. Indeed, there is no doubt that there is enough here to indict the infamous exponent of real politick and if half of what Hitchens suggests is true, enough to convict the little hatchet man as well. Needless to say, it's hard to believe it isn't true, would Kissinger hesitate to assassinate a man he considered a threat to the entrenched business interests he worshiped? It seems unlikely. OBEY

Rating:
Summary: Is the THERE there?
Review: As usual Christopher Hitchens writes a short book that is easy to read. As usual Christopher Hitchens backs up the his charges with documents, and other items to support his claims; however as with the MISSIONARY POSITION his facts do not,in my opinion support his thesis which is as I read it: "Henry Kissinger is a war criminal."

He certainly makes the case that Kissinger is an Amoral and Immoral so-and-so whose actions made a mockery of US principles. He also makes the case that he has something to hide. The paper trails which are sealed and the double speak offered are not the work of an innocent man. I wouldn't accept that from Clinton and I sure won't take it from Kissinger.

His weakest arguements in my opinion are what he leads with. The actions circa 67-72 concerning Vietnam can be defended as products of the cold war vs the USSR. The oppression of the current government in Vietnam and the Kimer Rouge in Cambodia are the result of our retreat, HOWEVER , If I read Hitch right he also contends that he was more interested in the political results at home over this than the results there.

His actions in Bangladesh, Cyrpus and and Timor have more meat, but to support these actions without making them happen, or even saying that he would ignore them is not a matter for the courts, it gives a black eye to all that America stands for but it does not rise to the level of war crimes. If the case was made that he instigated these actions the case would be on more solid ground.

His most fertile ground is Chile and Greece. Chile is the weaker argument. Whatever your opinion of the Marxist government the replacing it with a dictatorship was wrong (and stupid and counter productive, the effect of marxist policies would have turned the population against him without help from us. Only a soviet military buildup there or exporting revolution would have justified what was done.) but in the midst of the cold war the case can be made, (weakly) that a new marxist state in our hemisphere while fighting a cold (USSR) and a hot (VIETNAM) war could not stand. I would give him a 50-50 shot on that one.

Now Greece it another matter The planned murder (never carried out)can't be justified by national security and the written statement position on his death prepared and ready for release (documents sealed) is damning. Under US law I would try and convict him on this. Here is the ground to attack.

Hitch also makes a great point, not on war crimes though in the great Timor discussion. Kissinger saying he makes no profit on the deal when not asked implies a hand in the pie. This is disgusting and turns my stomach.

If the thesis was: "On these cases Kissinger took actions that were contrary to what was right, what was moral, what was in the best interests of the US (With the exception on Vietnam) and was anathema to the moral position of the US in the world." He would be spot on, even if the arguement was basically to try him under US law it (and he does argue this weakly) is a sound one.

His acutal arguement is on international grounds, more on Greece and less on elsewhere might have made his case.

This book should rate 3 1/2 stars really, but the quality of the writing (even if it doesn't support the thesis) demands the 4 over the three. It is worth reading, and I would be interested in having Mr. Kissinger answer it.

Rating:
Summary: why is henry kissinger still revered?
Review: Chrisopher Hitchens sets forth irrebutable arguments regarding the horrendous behavior of Kissinger, especially with regard to the continuation of the Vietnam War, and the assasination in 1972 of the Chilean chief of staff, Rene Schneider. Schneider was assasinated by those associated with a right wing Chilean officer, Roberto Viaux. This was because Schneider, following long-standing Chilean tradition, refused to interfere with the election of President Allende. Viaux was aided and abetted in this crime by the CIA, almost certainly with the knowledge of Kissinger.

Also upsetting is the fact that Kissinger and Nixon continued the war in Vietnam for more than four additional and unnecessary years, before it was concluded on the same terms that it could have been ended on in 1968. During that time period, the names of 20,492 of our American heroes were added to the Vietnam memorial. Also compelling are the details "Operation Speedy Express," which was ordered by Nixon and Kissinger in early 1969, which led to the killing of thousdands of non-combatants in the Mekong Delta. This, coupled with the secret bombing and later invasion of Cambodia in 1969 and 1970, which resulted in the death of an estimated 600,000 civilians in Cambodia, and 350,000 civilians in Laos, makes one wonder why Kissinger isn't reviled today, instead of being honored by appearances on television news shows.

While I generally dislike books that are excessively long, the only fault with "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" is that it could have been longer and given more details. However, we owe Hitchens our gratitude for setting forth, in direct and understandable writing, the horrible actions of Kissinger. By reading this book, we can see why history will condemn him.

David W. Lee

Rating:
Summary: Did Kissinger act in a vacuum? Why not Reagan, Mobutu?
Review: Christopher Hitchens does have it in for Kissinger. In addition to the fact that whatever actions Kissinger may have promoted--whether or not they were legal--were authorized and actually set into motion by the U.S. Presidents he served (Johnson, Nixon, Ford), Hitchens is fixated on Kissinger as some sort of behind the scenes Rasputin. Also, there's a world of clearly and inarguably guilty war criminals out there Hitchens could be pursuing--in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, in Syria, in Belgian Congo, in Turkey--and there are many within the current and prior U.S. Administrations he could be pursuing that have arguably contributed to mass murders at least to the extent Kissinger has if not more (i.e. Ronald Reagan with Iran Contra, for instance, U.S. support of the Taliban in the Iran-Iraq war, Reagan in Nicaragua), but nope, something about Kissinger alone makes him a juicy target for Hitchens.