The trial of christopher hitchens review

This book is a very fast, very fluid read about the foreign policy and possible war crimes of Henry Kissinger. Hitchens does not mince words; there is no rhetorical foreplay nor long winded explanations of how Nixon came to power or Kissinger's childhood, etc. It runs the reader right into the major crimes of Kissinger, namely: 1.

The fact that Kissinger most likely intentionally extended the Vietnam war in in order to defeat Herbert Humphrey and bring Richard Nixon to power, thereby needles This book is a very fast, very fluid read about the foreign policy and possible war crimes of Henry Kissinger.

The fact that Kissinger most likely intentionally extended the Vietnam war in in order to defeat Herbert Humphrey and bring Richard Nixon to power, thereby needlessly extending the war four years; 2. Helped the Pakistani government ensure genocide in Indonesia; 3. Helped depose a democratically elected leader in Chile, assassinate those who were against eventual military dictator Pinochet; 4. Extended the Vietnam War, illegally, against non-combatant nations; and 5.

Authorized the kidnap and potential assassination of at least one journalist living in the US. The book is a very fast read; it streams facts, figures and dates past the reader with a staccato-type rhythm, that barely gives the reader time to breath, much less digest what he is reading. Hitchens jumps right into the story with both feet some would say right on Kissinger and does not let up.

There is no time for pause or reflection and at times, I felt confused by what was being said. In some parts, I expected more foundation; in others, I felt Hitchens stopped half way through his narrative, only to find he was actually finished. If there is one overarching criticism of the book it is that Hitchens does not give the reader any guideposts nor back story- he assumes the reader knows where he has picked up the story and where he will end his argument.

I found this ineffective. I would have liked it much better had Hitchens instead said at the beginning of each of his arguments "In this chapter, I will discuss X, Y, and Z. But English being my native tongue, I could follow along well-enough.

However, he makes a deeply compelling case for war crimes against Kissinger. The book is a rude awakening to those who are not fully aware of the true damage Nixon and Kissinger did in their pursuit of global malleability. This book catalogs the crimes, shows the evidence, cross checks it with facts and figures, and then presents cogent retorts to any possible counter-arguments. It is, in a word, the opening argument in the case against Kissinger.

It is great at that. Taking the good with the bad, Hitchens even gives Kissinger time to counter-argue by printing Kissinger's response to Hitchens' book review of the book "The Arrogance of Power" by Anthony Summers and then making the man hang himself.

In all, the book does all it can with the small pages it has the book is a very, very past read. I warn you- if you are closed to the idea that an American citizen can be a war criminal, this book is not for you. If you are close to the idea that in the 's and 70's the US Government was involved in possible war crimes, this book is NOT for you. However, if you are open to that idea, this book will make you strongly question the US's actions during that time.

I found the book a good, solid read, but I thought it could have used, maybe, a little LESS focus, more explanation, and could have been twice the size. Otherwise a very good read. Dec 22, Lachlan rated it it was amazing. An essential piece that illuminates the shocking, corrupt and heartbreaking dark side of American foreign policy in the late 60's and early 70's. The extent to which Nixon, Kissinger and associates actively undermined democracies across any number of nations for the sake of 'national internest' and business interests is simply abhorrent.

Kissinger undermined peace efforts in Vietnam before Nixon came to power, authorised - and indeed pushed for gratutious, spiteful acts of murder in Indochina aga An essential piece that illuminates the shocking, corrupt and heartbreaking dark side of American foreign policy in the late 60's and early 70's. Kissinger undermined peace efforts in Vietnam before Nixon came to power, authorised - and indeed pushed for gratutious, spiteful acts of murder in Indochina against the Cambodian and Loas civillian population, had a hand in the kidnap and assassination of democratically elected heads of state and the establishment of brutally repressive and murderous military dictatorships including a policy of arms support for Indonesia's East Timor massacre and ensure that he was personally to profit from shady deals cloaked under the guise of diplomacy.

Though this book is by Christopher Hitchens, it is markedly absent of his verbose prose. He constructed this book in the effort to further legal prosecution of Henry Kissinger in some court for war crimes, treason and much more.

The thrust perfectly surmised in this paragraph: "Here one must pause for a recaputaluation. An unelected official in the United States is meeting with others, without the knowledge or authorisation of Congress, to plan the kidnapping of a constituion-minded senior officer in a democratic country with which the United States is not at war, and with which it maintains cordial diplomatic relations Jan 07, Ivana rated it it was amazing.

Leave it to Hitch to write the most concise, meticulous and fact-filled novel regarding one of the greatest murderers and criminals of the last century. I constantly fail to understand how this man continues to, not only enjoy freedom, but remain one of the most influential people in American foreign policy. This is mind boggling. Obviously, Hitch isn't the only journalist who embarked on uncovering the many, many crimes this man has committed; however, he did do so in the most compelling wa Wow Obviously, Hitch isn't the only journalist who embarked on uncovering the many, many crimes this man has committed; however, he did do so in the most compelling way, leaving no room for error or misinformation, backing his every claim with documentation and indisputable facts.

To this day, Kissinger's papers continue to lay dormant in the Library of Congress, protected from the public who will, most likely, never see this man face justice. What would have Hitchens written had he lived long enough to see those papers come to light after Kissinger's death, which can't come soon enough? We're left to dream about that This book offers a trial for this genocidal criminal This book offers a peace of justice in a way; while he may deny what is blatantly obvious, we all know what the truth is.

Hitchens delivers once again, but that is not a surprise. You're truly missed sir. Sep 07, Edward rated it liked it Shelves: nonfiction , biography-and-memoir , audiobooks , , politics. As I edge into Hitchens' deeper political writing I find myself a little out of my league when it comes to assessing the veracity of his claims.

The Trial of Henry Kissinger unequivocally lambastes Kissinger's involvement, malfeasance, and outright criminality in American foreign policy decisions from Vietnam to Indonesia, Chile, Yugoslavia, and Cyprus - claims that if true, would certainly indict him on numerous counts as a war criminal.

The writing is fervent and spirited in the usual Hitchens As I edge into Hitchens' deeper political writing I find myself a little out of my league when it comes to assessing the veracity of his claims.

The writing is fervent and spirited in the usual Hitchens style, although I am troubled at times by the frequent presumption of guilt by tangential association, and of assuming motives and making moral judgement, rather than sticking clearly to the facts. The book paints a condemning picture overall, however I can't help but wonder if some parts may be somewhat overstated.

As a skeptically-minded person, I cannot accept the totality of these arguments at face value which is entirely a product of my own ignorance on the subject , however Hitchens has certainly taught me to approach the topic of Kissinger with a very large dose of cynicism.

Aug 27, Joshua rated it really liked it. I cannot provide a point by point criticism of the career of Henry Kissinger, for I lack the research and background to really stand as any kind of source for a call for action. Better writers and reporters had dedicated their time and energies to this effect and done a better job than I ever could. What I will allow myself is the title of a citizen of the United States, and this position affords me the right to criticize figures in politics when they have performed or become implicated in heino I cannot provide a point by point criticism of the career of Henry Kissinger, for I lack the research and background to really stand as any kind of source for a call for action.

What I will allow myself is the title of a citizen of the United States, and this position affords me the right to criticize figures in politics when they have performed or become implicated in heinous actions.

Kissinger is not an abstract founding father, he is a contemporary living being and as such he can and should and has stand for the accusations and realities that various papers, testimony, and reports implicate him in. May 15, Dr. Tobias Christian Fischer rated it liked it. If you wanna know more about Kissinger - the book is your must read.

Mar 02, Ewell Gregoor rated it really liked it. It was too bias. Only from an evidenced-based perspective, rather than a one-sided rhetorician. Through examining the crimes of Kissinger, Hitchens puts the presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter all under the spotlight. Hitchens provides evidence, written testimony and public records, all of which when threatened by Kissinger under libel following the release of the book, Hitchens was prepared to subpoena and defend.

He welcomed the prospect of libel to bring Kissinger to justice. Subsequently, Kissinger took no action. Take from that what you will. I knew very little of East Timor before this book, however, such a small country in the Indonesian archipelago has had a third of its population wiped out by an expansionist Indonesian government, supplied with US weapons.

It is worth remembering that Hitchens was pro the Iraq war. Hitchens is a man against totalitarianism and totalitarian acts around the world. As he so damningly does here. The biggest sadness when reading this book is knowing that Hitchens is no longer with us. He adroitly identifies Hitchens's vacillations over the NATO air strikes in Kosovo, and his use of Hitchens's own advice from Letters to a Young Contrarian to attack his own later tendency to speak of the US military in the first person plural is a shrewd move.

But looked at from another perspective, there is perhaps more consistency in Hitchens's position than Seymour admits. Hitchens, for instance, always mistrusted pacifism. In Hitchens was calling for the withdrawal of British troops from Aden and South Yemen on anti-imperialist grounds. At the same time, he supported intervention in Zimbabwe against white supremacists in the Rhodesian Front, albeit feeling "uneasy" whilst doing so. He blamed American foreign policy for the partition of Cyprus in his book Hostage to History , but was scornful of British "inaction" during the Turkish invasion of So one might say that Hitchens was consistent in his inconsistency - a point he freely acknowledged - for the simple reason that no two conflict situations are precisely alike.

Hitchens's rallying cry "out of Aden, into Rhodesia" was not, therefore, necessarily hypocritical. Much of this comes down to individual moral values. Hitchens would probably agree with Seymour's conclusion that he began to "identify the United States Armed Forces as a human rights detachment, an antigenocide task force, and a vector for democracy", but whether or not this is an indictment is disputable. It is certainly damaging if you accept Seymour's interpretation that he was motivated by a latent imperialism, but this is unconvincing.

You don't have to be pro-war to recognise in Hitchens's argument an ideological coherence firmly grounded in a hatred of totalitarianism. When Hitchens stated that this was his sole consistency, he had a point. But Seymour won't have it. For instance, he insists that Hitchens's support for the Falklands War was a manifestation of his "instinctive Thatcherism" and "faith in empire".

But isn't this rather unlikely given Hitchens's view of extreme nationalism as "toxic", as expressed unambiguously in his memoir Hitch? Rather, Hitchens's support of the Falklands conflict was based on an overt animosity towards the fascistic nature of the Argentine junta, a perfectly satisfactory explanation that Seymour unfairly dismisses as mere "left gloss". Seymour makes much of the nationalistic fervour that galvanised public enthusiasm for Thatcher in the wake of the crisis.

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with Hitchens's stance in , which seems to me entirely consistent with his later support of the war in Iraq when understood from a position of liberal internationalism. Whether Seymour chooses to accept it or not, Hitchens's shift to the right was motivated by a desire to defend the principles of the left.

His "defection" is appealing as a convenient narrative, but it doesn't do justice to the substance of his work. Seymour accuses Hitchens of propagating a new "Jeffersonian" imperialism, or a "neoliberal imperialism with a faint leftist patina" but the essay he cites in support is not really a paean to empire at all.

Again and again, he tries to shoehorn Hitchens into a fixed, familiar category, but is only able to do so through careful omission. He speaks of Hitchens's "savage rhetoric of conquest" but supplies no examples. He tells us that Hitchens's attack on Edward Said in was "a signal that he would never again write the things he once had about Palestine. And indeed he never again did". For some time now it has appeared that Christopher Hitchens, the acerbic critic for The Nation and other lefty publications, was on the slippery slope to becoming at least an adjunct member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

In addition to being one of Bill Clinton's most lacerating critics, Hitchens's public repudiation of Sidney Blumenthal over Clinton's actions in the Lewinsky cover-up probably ended Blumenthal's future prospects as a serious journalist—a high public service by any reckoning. Hitchens has recently confessed to abandoning socialism and becoming more interested in libertarian ideas, admitting that Margaret Thatcher represented a more revolutionary force in British politics than the Labour Party.

He has been prominent among figures on the Left who have reacted splendidly in the aftermath of September 11, attacking "Islamic fascism" and affirming the right as well as the duty of America to make war. But his greatest heresy from liberalism is one we hear least about. Hitchens opposes abortion on materialistic grounds: human life has to begin at some point, and there is no non-arbitrary way to determine that is begins at a point after conception but before birth.

He still smokes tobacco products and enjoys adult beverages. Above all, Hitchens is a lively and stylish writer. He is never a bore, even when arguing a tendentious case, as he does with his most recent book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger. Hitchens delights in being an iconoclast, yet this book seems calculated to protect Hitchens's left flank from charges that he is a full-fledged defector.

There are many good reasons to be harshly critical of Kissinger's statecraft, some of which are on display in my own book, The Age of Reagan. Kissinger's precocious intellect is at the core of the problem. The leftist critique that Hitchens builds in The Trial of Henry Kissinger appears to be more straightforward: Kissinger is a war criminal who deserves a Nuremberg-style tribunal.

In the name of innumerable victims, it is time for justice to take a hand. So, Harold Evans and Tina Brown, the next time Kissinger attends one of your elegant soirees, rather than fawning to him, why don't you arrest him?

And if you really are pressed: The digested read, digested A compelling polemic that makes Hitler seem like a straightforward kinda guy, and will leave Augusto Pinochet and Slobodan Milosevic hoping they get to do their time in solitary.