Rating: 
Summary: Flies in the marketplace
Review: The contention of Hitchens that the arguments presented in _Trial_ are purely legal and not moral or political is simply absurd, as is the neo-Kantian theory of legal positivism on which it is based and of which Hitchens is doubtless ignorant. The attempt to separate a legal system of _nomoi_ (laws) from its cultural foundation is epistemically and practically impossible. Furthermore, the fact that his entire "case" is based on the existence of metaphysical values of contemporary Western European culture (in all its universalist and unilateralist pretentions), literally consecrated by the fiat of Western European courts, and which he tries to pass off as positively legal, illustrates that he is philosophically naive and probably quite ignorant of the truly moral foundation on which his ill informed arguments are based. Therefore, given that Hitchens indicates quite openly up front that he has no intention of presenting epistemically sound arguments, since he has little or no use for trying to understand the philosophical and historical forces that constitute the untenable legal philosophy on which his case rests, what follows comes as no surprise. We are treated to a litanny of rants based on little or no evidence. (NSC documents and testimony are obtusely selected and edited as others have pointed out.) Obviously Hitchens is banking on the hope that his emotional tone will sway the reader to believing what is logically quite flimsy. (Also, to give you an idea of the mindset--if you can call it that--of Hitchens' target audience, it is instructive that a majority of his approving readers also take Chomsky to be convincing.) However, if we are not to be simply subjected to the "contrarian" rhetoric that late modern liberalism (by which I do not mean the modern left necessarily--which narcissistically takes itself to be the _summum bonum_ of all political discourse--but rather classic liberalism as such) takes to be convincing, and if the standard of reasonable doubt is in play, then there is no case to be tried. _Trial_ is symptomatic of a wider European cultural phenomenon known as resentment. What else would you expect from one who takes Orwell to be an "important" political thinker? How does one arrive at the idea that authority is more dangerous than disorder? Machiavellism never had such a push over for an opponent as moralizing reflections of the Orwellian type. "For a man who wants to make a profession of good in all regards must come to ruin among so many who are not good. Hence it is necessary...to learn to be able not to be good, and to use this and not use it according to necessity. ...And furthermore one should not care about incurring the fame of those vices without which it is difficult to save one's state; for if one considers everything well, one will find something appears to be virtue, which if pursued would be one's ruin, and something else appears to be vice, which if pursued results in one's security and well-being" (The Prince, XV). Convictions are a far more dangerous enemy of truth than lies, and virtue, when considered historically, outside of the simple minded Christian world, is other than many suppose it to be. History will treat Kissinger as such.
Rating: 
Summary: Learn about your own history
Review: The skills of critical thinking have seemingly left the populace. In the face of this, it is a pleasure to read Hitchens book. While the forces of ultra-conservative/repressive thought prevail and floursih it is astonishingly refreshing to consume a piece of scholarship that pulls the ugly scab off of our contentious past. Kissinger has been a media darling for a long time, and like our current VP Dick Cheney, Kissinger hid behind the office of the president while preforming outrageous and criminal acts in the name of the US. I thank Hitchens for being a true cultural worker.
Rating: 
Summary: Henry Kissinger: dignitary or crook
Review: The Watergate affair secret was in the hand of all political parties. The reason for not opening exposing each other was that they could be negatively affected by it as well. Also Henry Kissinger was a main part in the Watergate affair along with many other things. Kissinger would only help if it would be helpful to him. This book implies that everyone just looks out for themselves and their own interests. It also implies that Kissinger was part of many crimes and that he was always looking to put himself higher in government.
Although all of these things are true these points can be argued. . He says how Kissenger committed most of these crimes and was the main role. However, the president knew about it and was telling him what to do. Also both political parties knew about everything was going on and yet they didn't say anything about it publicly unless A. they knew that no one had and dirt tying them to the crime or B. they actually didn't have anything to do with the crime and someone leaked the information to them. This book was really good and informed me on a lot of things that i didnt know exsisted in the government. i liked it a lot
Rating: 
Summary: Overblown Kissinger Book By A Super Liberal
Review: This book is not very objective. Although it tries very persuasively to demonize Henry Kissinger. The Vietnam War was different than World War II as it is different than the War on Terror. So some anologies apply but not all. History has shown that the bombings of Cambodia and Laos lead to the ending of the Vietnam War. Those decisions were just as important as Clinton's bombing decisions in Bosnia that changed the course of history there.
Rating:
Summary: Absolute Garbage, do not waste your money, 1-sided
Review: This book is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Rating:
Summary: Reckless Journalist on a Witch Hunt
Review: This book, and the subsequent Mock-o-mentry, is more of a muckraking tabloid smear than a serious study. Granted, Henry Kissinger is a controversial figure but quite hardly a war criminal. Also, many of Hitches sources are secondary accounts from unreliable and dubious muckrakers like Anthony Summers and Kissinger's political opponents. therefore, the end result resembles something you would read in the taboids while checking out at the Grocery store.
Furthermore, most of Hitchens conclusions are based on generalizations and do not reflect the facts. For instance, the fall of Allende in Chile had more to do with economic conditions than anything Kissinger did, the neutrality of Cambodia is a myth(The NV Communists were in there slaughtering Cambodians), and Anna Chenault could not of kept Thieu from signing a treaty to end the war in 1968. Thieu knew that Hanoi didn't want peace and he barely signed the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.
Thus, there is no logical analysis of the alleged crimes and basically the account turns into a long propaganda-filled rant. No court would accept these demagougic charges. Only a delusional mob looking for a McCarthyesqe witch hunt would support this flimsy and one-sided evidence. But, it looks like the demagougic Hitchens has convinced a number of 'villagers' that Henry is a monster and they're all prepared to lynch first and look at the evidence later. The world is quickly becoming a very scary place...
Rating:
Summary: Acute Criticism of the Foreign Policy "Expert"
Review: To those being turned off by some of the criticism by other reviewers, I urge you to read the book yourself in order to distinguish reality from the fabrications of the Amazon critics. After doing so, you'll probably find yourself concluding that those who are bashing this book so much probably, at best, skimmed through it and attempted to debunk points that Hitchens never made while they ignore the NSC documents, cable text, etc, on which Hitchens' builds his argument. Take for example a reviewer's claim that we didn't intervene in East Timor because "we had just gotten out of Vietnam." In fact, as Hitchens points out in his book, the Mayaguez affair in which the US, under the direction of Sec. of State Kissinger, invaded a Cambodian island to rescue military personnel that Kissinger knew had already left the island. This was in May of 1975 one month after we and the South Vietnamese goverment lost control of Saigon. I could name numerous other examples of where these "reviewers" make false claims, but I'll stop in the interest of brevity on a web site review. Read the book yourself and see a glimpse into the dark side of US foreign policy.
Rating: 
Summary: No Laws No War Criminals - It Is That Simple
Review: What is a "war criminal"? For all practical purposes it means you lost so you are the criminal, we won we bring peace and freedom. It gives an easy out and a simple legal mechanism to lock up or kill the opposing leaders at the end of hostilities. Here is the problem - there is no consistent set of international laws. As an example, I just read the new book by Brzezinski "The Choice" - excellent book - and he thinks an effective World Court is many decades away. So at the present time we have individuals living in sovereign states that accept only that laws apply to individuals living within states, but the states themselves still have failed to grasp or have intentionally chosen to ignore the concept that sovereign states in dealing among themselves must (also) be governed by a set of international laws. Then when there is a problem anywhere (like Iraq or even Haiti) the first step is to go through a legal process. People like Kissinger in the past, and more recently Wolfowitz have decided on their own that they are above the law or can act with impunity. But even Jimmy Carter shipped material to Afghanistan to support an armed insurrection, and Reagan shipped goods (secretly) to Iraq, Iran and Nicaragua contrary even to US law, not just international laws. So this is a problem that extends well beyond Kissinger. It is somewhat ironic that Jack Straw is condemning Israel in March 2004 for their acts against Hamas while he supports illegal intervention in Iraq in 2003. All in all there is a high degree of arbitrariness and hypocrisy. So it follows that if the US or Britain are to be a democratic examples they must apply consistent legal standards to all international dealings and support international treaties and laws - to the letter of the laws, even if that is inconvenient, takes longer, and does not always result in the short term interests of the US being served. If some sort of international consensus cannot be reached then it is a "war of the jungle", and war crimes will always be an issue. It also follows that Middle East peace and an environment consensus will never be solved which is quite a depressing concept. So it is really a priority to strengthen international laws and institutions. At the moment it is shear nonsense to call Kissinger a war criminal since there are no laws to break. Jack in Toronto
|
