KissingerWatch #1

["Michael Schmitt icai" <michael at icai-online.org> (by way of Alessandro Marescotti <a.marescotti at peacelink.it>)]

- Please circulate this bulletin as widely as possible -

******************************************
Kissinger Watch ( 
<http://www.icai-online.org/kissingerwatch>www.icai-online.org/kissingerwatch 
) -  a joint project of

East-Timor Action Network
International Campaign against Impunity
Instituto Cono Sur
******************************************

Dear readers,

In the past few years, the international movement against the impunity of 
public officials has gained unprecedented momentum; activists worldwide 
have made significant efforts to assure that these high-ranking politicians 
and soldiers will be held accountable for their acts, which include crimes 
against humanity, war crimes, torture, and genocide.

General Pinochet was detained in London for more than 500 days and escaped 
extradition to Spain only after a dubious medical assessment found him 
unfit to stand trial.  Slobodan Milosevic was extradited last June to the 
Hague Tribunal (ICTY) on charges of war crimes, genocide and crimes against 
humanity. A second international ad hoc tribunal (ICTR) has been 
established for Rwanda and tries suspected perpetrators of the genocide. 
Support for the establishment of similar tribunals for Sierra Leone, 
Cambodia, and East Timor is strong. In the last week of February 2002, 
Portugal and Ecuador joined the International Criminal Court (ICC). Only 
eight ratifications remain before the ICC treaty enters into force.

Impunity, however, is not limited to those countries that are placed under 
the label of the "second" or "third world."  The West must also confront 
its criminals; it cannot remain blind to the crimes of its officials.  For 
this reason and with this issue, we launch KissingerWatch.

To many, Henry Kissinger epitomizes the failure of the Western world to pay 
serious attention to the grave crimes committed by its leadership.  In 
response, KissingerWatch is designed to examine this specific case of 
impunity, to provide information about Kissinger's alleged role in the 
violation of human rights worldwide, to kindle debate, and to facilitate 
the exchange of opinions among experts and activists.

Inspired by the success of the Pinochet Watch bulletin 
(<http://www.tni.org/pinochet/>http://www.tni.org/pinochet/), 
KissingerWatch will be published as an email bulletin that will be 
distributed several times per annum.

The first issue aims at providing a comprehensive - but far from complete - 
overview of Kissinger's past and present activities.  It also serves to 
introduce other initiatives that raise awareness on Kissinger's alleged 
involvement in crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.  Future 
issues will be more concise and hence more easily digestible.

To subscribe to KissingerWatch (free of charge), send an email to: 
subscribe-kw at icai-online.org

We also welcome your active participation in this project. We encourage all 
readers to share the results of their research with us. 
(kissingerwatch at icai-online.org)

Thank you, and we appreciate your readership.

Michael Schmitt, The International Campaign against Impunity, ( 
<http://www.icai-online.org/>www.icai-online.org )
michael at icai-online.org

John Miller, East-Timor Action Network ( <http://www.etan.org/>www.etan.org )
fbp at igc.org

Gérman Westphal, Instituto Cono Sur ( 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/politicaconosur/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/politicaconosur/ 
)
westphal at umbc.edu

TABLE OF CONTENTS
***********************

1.HOLDING INDIVIDUAL LEADERS RESPONSIBLE FOR VIOLATION OF CUSTOMARY 
INTERNATIONAL LAW
The US-bombing of Cambodia and Laos (summary)

2.FORD AND KISSINGER GAVE GREEN LIGHT TO INDONESIA'S INVASION OF EAST-TIMOR 
IN 1975
New Documents Detail Conversations with Suharto
Source: Press release by National Security Archive

3.THE ASSASSINATION OF GENERAL SCHNEIDER / LAWSUIT FILED IN THE US
by ICAI

4.FRENCH AND CHILEAN JUDGES TRY TO INTERROGATE KISSINGER
Source: Pinochet Watch 36

5.KISSINGER HAD A HAND IN "DIRTY WAR"
By Martin Andersen & John Dinges
Source: Insight Magazine, The Washington Times

6.RESOLUTION OF THE GENEVAN PARLIAMENT
By Antonio Hodgers (Member of Genevan Parliament)

7.NPR RADIO INTERVIEW: "I AM NOT A CRIMINAL"

8.THE PITFALLS OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
by Henry Kissinger
Source: Foreign Affairs, July / August 2001

9.THE CASE FOR UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
By Kenneth Roth (Executive Director of Human Rights Watch),
Source: Foreign Affairs, July / August 2001

10.WEBSITES RELATING TO HERNY KISSINGER

11.FAIR USE NOTICE


*************************************
1. Summary of  "Holding Individual Leaders Responsible for Violations of
Customary International Law: The U.S. Bombardment of Cambodia and Laos"
by Nicole Barrett, J.D., Columbia Law, 2001., prepared by Katharine Larsen, 
larsenke at law.georgetown.edu, Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. class 
of 2003.

(Nicole Barrett's article is available under 
<http://www.icai-online.org/kissingerwatch/barrett.pdf>www.icai-online.org/kissingerwatch/barrett.pdf 
)

        At no time has the question of accountability for political 
decision-making been as controversial as it is today.  The roller coaster 
trajectory of the past few years alone has included the prosecutions of 
Pinochet, Habre, and Milosevic; it has also included a recent ICJ decision 
that undermines the exercise of universal jurisdiction in Belgium, the 
silencing of opponents to U.S. governmental policy in the wake of the 
unforgettable events September 11, and the continuing presumption of 
political immunity for foreign policy practices.
        In this context, Nicole Barrett's note, "Holding Individual 
Leaders Responsible for Violations of Customary International Law: The U.S. 
Bombardment of Cambodia and Laos," analyzes the legal consequence of filing 
suit against Henry Kissinger, the U.S. National Security Advisor from 
1969-1973, for violations of customary international law (CIL).  Here, 
Barrett tackles two questions: Did the U.S. bombings of Laos and Cambodia 
violate CIL, and, if so, can Kissinger be held accountable under theories 
of command responsibility?  Both these questions are answered in the 
affirmative.  First, Barrett asserts that carpet-bombing represents a per 
se violation of CIL and that the bombings in this case specifically flouted 
the laws of war at the time.  Second, she determines that Kissinger knew 
about the bombings and not only did not take measures to prevent them but 
actively sought to maintain them despite the deaths of almost one million 
citizens of Laos and Cambodia.
        In analyzing whether the bombings constituted a violation of CIL, 
Barrett makes her point in four parts.  She first describes the chronology 
and character of the attacks on Laos and Cambodia individually.  She then 
discusses the origins of the legal rules that apply to these 
events.  Third, she asserts that these rules are binding today and were 
equally binding at the time of the bombings.  Last, she applies these 
standards to the facts of each attack.  Because she determines that CIL, as 
it stood in 1969, had established a clearly discernable and legally binding 
principle that civilian lives must be shared in times of war and that the 
bombings in question indiscriminately took the lives of hundreds of 
thousands of non-combatants, Barrett concludes that these acts constituted 
a clear violation of CIL that could not be justified by "military necessity."
        The bombing of Laos resulted in the murder of over one-tenth the 
country's population.  As Barrett points out, the United States dropped 
more bombs there than it did worldwide during World War II.  Hospitals, 
religious institutions, and villages were wiped out; Agent Orange was 
spread across 4.5 million acres of fertile lands; almost a million citizens 
were forced from their homes in what Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) called "a 
mindless use of power."
        The devastation in Cambodia was equally heinous.  Six hundred 
thousand non-combatants were murdered, and over two million were forced to 
flee as the United States used carpet-bombing techniques to destroy densely 
populated towns, fertile fields, and judge areas.  The absolute ruin led 
Cambodian citizens directly into the hands of the dictatorial Khmer Rouge 
regime. Although a domestic tribunal has been proposed in order to hold 
perpetrators accountable for the human rights abuses committed in Cambodia, 
its mandate will likely be limited to the period after 1975, protecting the 
United States from culpability.

Given these events, Barrett canvasses the applicable legal standards that 
existed in 1969 in order to lay out the rules governing acts of war.  These 
standards include the following rules: parties to war must distinguish 
between military and civilian targets; they must not direct attacks at 
civilians; and they must limit each attack to the advancement of legitimate 
military objectives, meaning that an attack must be necessary as well as 
proportional.  In asserting that these principles were binding upon the 
United States at the time, Barrett asserts that, in accordance with 
international law rules, these rules were derived from consistent state 
practice that was followed out of a sense of opinio juris, i.e. general 
legal obligation.  Here, Barrett describes and documents the evolution of 
the laws of war from the writings of Grotius, the Lieber Code, and the 
early Hague Conventions to the principles enforced in the Nuremberg trials, 
the codes advanced by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the 
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.  From these documents, she 
identifies a "clearly established customary international law rule that 
civilians must be distinguished from military targets and spared."  After 
applying these rules to the facts described above, Barrett conclusively 
states that the bombings were in complete violation of the standards of CIL 
and that carpet-bombing as such represents a full affront to these standards.
In the second part of her note, where Barrett assesses Kissinger's 
culpability, Barrett walks through command responsibility's two prongs, as 
outlined by the Yamashita principle and the 1956 U.S. Army Law of Land 
Warfare.  She finds that Kissinger satisfies both.  First, as a political 
leader with direct control over the military, Kissinger fulfilled the 
requirement that he "knew or should have known" that military forces were 
committing crimes.  Kissinger himself proudly states in his autobiography 
that he, "[i]n an awesome setting ... worked out the guidelines for the 
bombings of [Cambodia, developing] both a military and a diplomatic 
schedule."  Further, military officials noted that he read raw intelligence 
in order to orchestrate his plans.  Second, Kissinger did nothing to take 
"necessary and reasonable measures to prevent illegal acts"; in fact, as 
the architect of the bombings, he systematically planned their 
implementation, and he complemented the Seventh Air Force on its use of the 
most advanced photography, radar, sensors, and intelligence to carry out 
his plans.  Accordingly, Kissinger was fully aware of the results of the 
bombings - the human massacres and physical devastation - and he did 
everything in his power to assure that the U.S. forces reached these 
goals.  As such, Barrett asserts that Kissinger is culpable for these 
events under the theory of command responsibility.
In her conclusion, Barrett confronts the obstacles of the statute of 
limitations, legislative jurisdiction, and non-justiciability (e.g. 
political question doctrines).  She finds that none of these is an 
insurmountable obstacle, although a successful trial would require careful 
forum selection in order to identify a jurisdiction that waives the statute 
of limitations for war crimes, that allows prosecutions on the basis of 
universal jurisdiction, and that has the political will to carry such a 
controversial case forward.  Because the further dismantlement of the 
presumption of non-accountability for governmental officials will 
significantly strengthen the human rights movement, Barrett challenges the 
international community to "have the courage to hold political leaders 
accountable for their criminal policies" and to begin with the indictment 
of Henry Kissinger.



*************************************
2. Ford and Kissinger Gave Green Light to Indonesia's Invasion of East 
Timor, 1975:
New Documents Detail Conversations with Suharto. (Document available at 
<http://www.icai-online.org/kissingerwatch/invasion_of_east_timor.pdf>www.icai-online.org/kissingerwatch/invasion_of_east_timor.pdf 
)

6 December 2001
                                                                                         For 
more information contact:
                                                                                         William 
Burr (202) 994-7032
                                                                                         Michael 
Evans (202) 994-7029


WASHINGTON, D.C. - The National Security Archive at George Washington 
University today published on the World Wide Web previously secret archival 
documents confirming for the first time that the Indonesian government 
launched its bloody invasion of Portuguese East Timor in December 1975 with 
the concurrence of President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry 
Kissinger.  Since then, the Suharto regime that sponsored the invasion has 
disintegrated, and East Timor has achieved independence, but as many as 
200,000 Timorese died during the twenty-five year occupation.
Twenty-six years ago today, President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State 
Henry Kissinger met with Indonesian President Suharto during a brief 
stopover in Jakarta while they were flying back from Beijing.  Aware that 
Suharto had plans to invade East Timor, and that the invasion was legally 
problematic-in part because of Indonesia's use of U.S. military equipment 
that Congress had approved only for self-defense-Ford and Kissinger wanted 
to ensure that Suharto acted only after they had returned to U.S. 
territory.  The invasion took place on December 7, 1975, the day after 
their departure, resulting in the quarter-century long violent and bloody 
Indonesian occupation of East Timor.  Henry Kissinger has consistently 
denied that any substantive discussion of East Timor took place during the 
meeting with Suharto, but a newly declassified State Department telegram 
from December 1975 confirms that such a discussion took place and that Ford 
and Kissinger advised Suharto that "it is important that whatever you do 
succeeds quickly."  Two key documents released today were declassified by 
the Gerald R. Ford Library at the request of the National Security Archive; 
Archive staffers located other documents at the National Archives.  Today's 
revelations include:

When Suharto told Ford and Kissinger that he was about to order an 
invasion, the response was only to caution that "it would be better it it 
were done after we returned" (the invasion began the next day).
Kissinger told Suharto that the use of U.S.-supplied arms in the 
invasion-equipment that under U.S. law could not be used for offensive 
military operations-"could create problems," but indicated that they might 
be able to "construe" the invasion as self-defense.
On 12 August 1975, a few days after a coup attempt in East Timor, Kissinger 
observed that an Indonesian takeover would take place "sooner or later".
Six months into the occupation of East Timor, Kissinger acknowledged to 
senior State Department officials that U.S. military aid had been used 
"illegally" and hinted at his own doubts about the invasion: Washington had 
"not very willingly" resumed normal relations with Jakarta.

 "This important set of documents reveals the overriding importance that 
the Ford administration attached to maintaining friendly relations with 
Indonesia in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. defeat in Vietnam.  Ford 
and Kissinger plainly viewed the maintenance of warm ties with the Suharto 
regime as a foreign policy priority that far outweighed any secondary 
concerns about the possible Indonesian use of force in East Timor--even 
though the use of such force would ... constitute a clear violation of 
American laws.  The callous disregard for the human rights and political 
aspirations of the East Timorese are rather breathtakingly exposed in these 
newly released documents." --- Robert J. McMahon, Professor of History, 
University of Florida, and author of The Limits of Empire: The United 
States and Southeast Asia Since 1945 (1999)

*************************************
3. The murder of General Rene Schneider / Lawsuit against Kissinger in the US
by ICAI

Last September, the family of Chile's former Army Commander-in-Chief Rene 
Schneider filed suit against Henry Kissinger, Richard Helms et al. in the 
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accusing them of plotting 
the general's 1970 kidnap and assassination. The night before the lawsuit 
was filed, CBS broadcasted a special "60 minutes" programme, including 
interviews with former U.S. Ambassador to Chile Edward Korry and Chile 
expert Peter Kornbluh from the National Security Archives, both confirming 
Kissinger's responsibility. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the 
suit on various grounds, including absolute immunity and the political 
question doctrine.  The lawyers of the Schneider family filed an opposition 
to the defendants' motion to dismiss last December, and the defendants 
filed a reply to that opposition at the end of January 2002.

General René Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army, was killed 
in 1970 by Chilean military coup-plotters with the full support of Henry 
Kissinger and other high-level officials of the intelligence community.
The background was the 1970 presidential elections in Chile.  The context 
was the Cold War.  At the time, Henry Kissinger was President Nixon's 
National Security Advisor and Chairman of the National Security Council's 
40 Committee in charge of Clandestine Operations.
Afraid of the consequences of a democratically elected Marxist in the 
region, the United States intelligence community, headed by Kissinger, 
organized covert operations to prevent the victory of Salvador 
Allende.  The first "Track" of these covert operations became known as the 
political/constitutional solution.  It consisted of continuing propaganda 
efforts that had been used in previous Chilean presidential and 
congressional elections.  The U.S. thus infiltrated political parties and 
published newspaper and magazine articles, both in Chile and abroad, 
containing anti-communist and anti-Allende rhetoric.  The U.S. also exerted 
political pressure against the Chilean Congress.  According to the Chilean 
Constitution, if no presidential candidate wins a majority of the vote, the 
legislature must elect one of the two front runners.  Since the Chilean 
elections were close, the U.S. wanted to make sure the Chilean legislature 
was influenced in the "right" direction.

Nevertheless, the political/constitutional solution did not work, and 
Allende was elected President.  Despite strong propaganda efforts, the 
Chilean people and its legislature did not want to interfere with the 
democratic process.  General Schneider, as Commander-in-Chief of the 
largest section of the Chilean military, publicly announced the Army's 
desire to abide by the Constitution and to recognize whomever the Chilean 
people and/or legislature elected democratically.  Due to his enormous 
influence among the military, Gen. Schneider became the main impediment to 
a military solution for the Allende problem.
Frustrated by failure, Kissinger uttered a famous statement best 
characterized as an expression of his disregard and disdain of the Chilean 
democratic will:  "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country 
go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people."  Faced with 
the collapse of the propaganda activities and the frustration of their 
plans to prevent an Allende victory, Kissinger and the heads of the U.S. 
intelligence community decide to implement "Track II", also known as 
Operation FUBELT.  The purpose of Track II was to promote a coup in Chile.
One of the methods used to promote this coup, besides threatening the 
military with ending U.S./Chile Military Assistance Programs, was to 
provide different groups of coup-plotters with weapons in order to remove 
Gen. Schneider.  All of this, of course, had to be done in great secrecy in 
order to hide U.S. involvement, not only from Chileans and from other 
nations, but from the U.S. government as well.  Thus, Kissinger authorized 
Track II without informing the relevant authorities in the Department of 
Defense and the State Department, including the Chilean Ambassador.

As a part of Track II, the U.S. supported, encouraged, and financed various 
coup efforts led by Chilean General Valenzuela and retired General 
Viaux.  Both of these groups emphasized that a successful coup required 
removing Gen. Schneider.  In order to do so, the coup plotters requested 
machine guns, gas grenades, radios, hand grenades, and ammunition.  The 
U.S. consistently expressed its willingness to either provide for an air 
drop of the requested equipment, or to at least finance their purchase 
elsewhere.  Despite certain logistical differences between the U.S. and the 
Valenzuela and Viaux groups, Kissinger reaffirmed his support for the coup 
efforts and reminded all the parties involved that "It is firm and 
continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup."  The U.S. thus 
sent sub machine guns, ammunition and gas grenades to the coup plotters in 
order to remove Schneider, whose firm pro-constitutional stance remained 
the biggest "stumbling block for a successful coup" against Allende.
According to declassified information, the plan was as follows:  Gen. 
Schneider had been invited to an army party.
"When arriving at VIP house, Schneider will be abducted.  Schneider will be 
taken to waiting airplane and flown to [blacked out].  Valenzuela will 
announce to assembled generals that Schneider had disappeared and that 
General Carlos Prats to succeed Schneider [...]  Military will not admit 
involvement in Schneider's abduction which is to be blamed on 
leftists.  Almost immediately, Carabineros [Chilean police] will institute 
search for Schneider in all of Chile, using this search as pretext to raid 
Communist-controlled poblaciones.  Extreme leftist and rightist leadership 
will be picked up and dispatched across border. [...]  If Schneider's 
abduction successful, [the coup-plotters are] to be paid $50,000, price 
agreed upon between plotters and unidentified team of abductors."
The first two attempts to kidnap Gen. Schneider failed.  After each 
attempt, the U.S. not only encouraged the coup-plotters to keep trying, but 
also provided more gas masks and gas grenades.  On October 22, 1970, six 
hours after the U.S. had delivered sub machine guns to one of the groups, 
Gen. René Schneider was shot on his way to work.  The bullets perforated 
his liver and he had to undergo open heart surgery.  After three days of 
agonizing, he died on October 25, 1970.  He and his wife had five young 
children.
In the aftermath of the assassination, U.S. Army Attaché Paul Wimert 
retrieved the guns with the serial numbers filed off (so they couldn't be 
traced), the ammunition, the tear gas, and the gas masks, and went to the 
port town of Valparaiso and dumped them all in the ocean.
The U.S. considered resuming military sales and Military Assistance 
Programs to the Chilean military, depending on the consequences of the 
attempt against Schneider.  According to declassified documents, "It could 
be construed as bonus for job well done."
Despite Kissinger's desire for secrecy from the U.S. government, the 
operation leaked and a Congressional investigation followed.  In 1975 the 
Church Report (named after Congressman Frank Church) was published, but by 
its own admission, the Church report is incomplete and provides little 
detail of the Schneider assassination.  On September 2000, twenty five 
years later and in the wake of the Pinochet detention in London, 
Congressman Maurice Hinchey published a second Congressional investigation 
concerning U.S. activities in Chile.  The Hinchey Report, although shorter 
than the Church Report, contains more details about the Schneider 
assassination.  Among the most striking details, the Report states that "in 
an effort to keep the prior contact secret, maintain the good will of the 
group, and for humanitarian reasons, $35,000 was passed" to the 
kidnappers/assassins.
The Hinchey Report and the 1999 and 2000 declassification of thousands of 
documents that were previously unavailable finally provided the Schneider 
family with the documentation necessary to file a civil lawsuit against 
Henry Kissinger, Richard Helms (ex-CIA Director) and the U.S. 
Government.  The suit is pending in the United States District Court for 
the District of Columbia.
Chilean courts have already found that the death of General Schneider 
involved both the group led by General Viaux and the group led by General 
Valenzuela.  General Viaux was convicted by a Chilean military court on 
charges of kidnapping and conspiring to cause a coup.  General Valenzuela 
was convicted of conspiring to cause a coup.  Henry Kissinger is still at 
large.

Sources:
-      WWW.FOIA.STATE.GOV (Chile Collection)
-      CHURCH CONGRESSIONAL REPORT (1975)
-      HINCHEY CONGRESSIONAL REPORT (2000)

*************************************
4. FRENCH AND CHILEAN JUDGES TRY TO INTERROGATE KISSINGER
source: Pinochet Watch 36

While visiting Paris last month, former US Secretary of State Henry 
Kissinger was called as a witness in a case involving the disappearance of 
French citizens in Chile and Argentina in the 1970s.

The Parisian police presented Kissinger with the summons at the Ritz Hotel 
on May 28. The summons was issued by French Judge Roger Le Loire at the 
request of William Bourdon, Secretary General of the International 
Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and a lawyer for families of French 
victims of the Pinochet dictatorship.

Le Loire, who issued an international arrest warrant against Augusto 
Pinochet in 1998, is currently investigating the disappearance of five 
French citizens who were disappeared in Chile and Argentina. One of those 
was disappeared as part of Operation Condor, a coordinated campaign of 
terror that united the security forces of Chile, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, 
Bolivia and Argentina to exchange intelligence and carry out joint 
operations against so-called leftist subversives. Condor was responsible 
for the exchange of prisoners, disappearances, and the assassination of 
opposition leaders, including the 1976 assassination of Orlando Letelier 
and Ronni Karpen Moffitt in Washington, D.C.

Kissinger was specifically asked to testify about Operation Condor. 
Recently declassified documents show that the US government was aware of 
and monitored the activities of Condor. According to William Bourdon, There 
are a number of factors that suggest that the US government was carefully 
monitoring what happened in Chile, especially the situation of foreigners 
who had disappeared...Kissinger is more than just a symbol, he is a witness 
who can contribute to uncovering the truth.

Kissinger made no public comments about the summons and did not appear at 
the court to testify. The US Embassy told Le Loire that Kissinger had other 
obligations that prevented him from appearing before the court. The Embassy 
also announced that the court should not have presented the request 
directly to Kissinger. A spokesperson explained, we understand that the 
court is examining a period when Dr. Kissinger was an official of the US 
government. We therefore believe that the court should present its request 
through government channels to the Department of State.

In an interview with Mexican magazine Proceso, Bourdon pointed out that Le 
Loire had already sent a formal request for information to the US 
government two years ago asking to interview several US witnesses-he never 
received a reply. Bourdon went on to say that as long as Le Loire continues 
his investigation, Kissinger will be called to testify every time he visits 
Paris.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHILEAN AND ARGENTINIAN JUDGES ALSO SEEKS TO INTERROGATE KISSINGER

Two weeks after Judge Le Loire called Kissinger to testify in France, 
Chilean Judge Juan Guzmán announced that he would seek to interrogate the 
former US official as part of his investigation into the 1973 murder of 
American journalist Charles Horman in Chile.

On June 4, Judge Guzmán declared that he would send a list of questions to 
Kissinger regarding the Horman case. That same day, however, the court 
denied a petition to interrogate Pinochet as part of the Horman investigation.

On August 9, the Argentinian Judge Rodolfo Canicoba requested the testimony 
of Kissinger regarding his investigations into Operation Condor.

For more information:
Bruce Broomhall, Criminal Justice on a Global Scale, The New York Times, 
June 13, 2001
Anne Marie Mergier, Kissinger, premio Nobel de la Paz, responsible de 
asesinatos, Proceso, June 12, 2001
La Tercera, Juez Guzmán envía exhorto a Henry Kissinger, June 5, 2001
CNN en Español.com, EE.UU. se opuso a que Kissinger preste declaración 
sobre Chile en Francia, May 30, 2001
Pierre-Antoine Souchard, Kissinger Summoned in Pinochet Case, AP, May 28, 2001
Eduardo Febbro, Un Juez Frances Quiere Que Atestigue el Ex-Secretario de 
Estado, Página 12, May 29, 2001
BBC, US Bars Kissinger in Pinochet Probe, May 29, 2001

*************************************
5.  Kissinger Had a Hand in 'Dirty War'

By Martin Edwin Andersen and John Dinges
source: Insight Magazine, The Washington Times 01/04/02

Newly released U.S.  documents obtained by Insight show that in 1976 
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a key role in assuring 
Argentina's military rulers that their antiterrorist campaign involving the 
disappearance, torture and assassination of at least 15,000 people -- many 
of whom were not combatants -- would not be criticized by the United States 
on human-rights grounds.

The documents, which cover events between June and October of that year -- 
the period of some of the most intense repression in Argentina -- show that 
the military regime was "convinced that there was no real
problem with the United States over the issue." The Argentine foreign 
minister, Adm.  Cesar Guzzetti, drew that conclusion after meetings in 
October 1976 with Kissinger, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and other 
top State Department officials, according to a U.S.  Embassy cable.

The new documents provide a detailed look at the bitter dispute about 
U.S.  support for a military dictatorship and include a rare example of an 
ambassador daring directly to oppose Kissinger, one of the most
powerful figures in postwar U.S.  history.

U.S.  Ambassador Robert Hill described Guzzetti as "euphoric" and "almost 
ecstatic" and "in a state of jubilation" after returning from Washington to 
report on the meetings to Argentine President Jorge R.
Videla.  According to Hill, who since has died, "[Guzzetti] said the vice 
president urged him to advise President Videla to 'finish the terrorist 
problem quickly.' "

Hill, in contrast, showed barely concealed outrage that his superiors in 
Washington were undercutting his efforts to encourage human-rights 
improvements.  His three-page cable, dated Oct.  19, 1976, had the
effect of putting "bitter criticism" of Kissinger's handling of the 
meetings with Guzzetti on the record, according to a memo by another 
U.S.  official who recommended an immediate response.

Hill quoted Guzzetti as saying Kissinger "had assured him that the United 
States 'wants to help Argentina.' " Kissinger told Guzzetti "that if the 
terrorist problem was over by December or January, he [the
secretary] believed serious problems could be avoided in the United 
States," according to Hill's cable.  A reply to Hill from Kissinger's chief 
Latin American officer claimed Guzzetti "heard only what he wanted to hear" 
and had arrived at his interpretation "perhaps [because of] his poor grasp 
of English."

Hill, in a carefully phrased "comment" ending the cable to Washington, 
veils his criticism of Kissinger by speaking only in terms of Guzzetti's 
impressions of the meetings.  But, significantly, Hill seems to stress
that Guzzetti received the same message from a total of five top U.S. 
officials in four separate meetings, and Hill does not raise the 
possibility that Guzzetti misinterpreted what he heard in those meetings.

Guzzetti's meetings in Washington, coming just six months after the coup 
against the constitutional left-wing government of Isabel Peron, took place 
at a critical time in Argentina.  Before Guzzetti traveled to the United 
States, Hill forcefully told him that the continuing atrocities could not 
be defended.  In the view of the United States, Hill recalled in a 
subsequent cable to the State Department, dated Sept.  20, 1976, having 
told Guzzetti that "murdering priests and dumping 47 bodies in the street 
in one day could not be seen in context of defeating the terrorists 
quickly; on the contrary, such acts were probably counterproductive.  What 
the USG [U.S.  government] hoped was that the GOA [government of Argentina] 
could soon defeat terrorists, yes, but do so as nearly as possible within 
the law."

Guzzetti went to the United States "fully expecting to hear some strong, 
firm, direct warnings on his government's human-rights practices," Hill 
wrote after meeting with the Argentine leader upon the latter's return to 
Buenos Aires.  "Rather than that, he has returned in a state of jubilation, 
convinced that there is no real problem with the United States over this 
issue.  Based on what Guzzetti is doubtless reporting to the GOA, it must 
now believe that if it has any problems with the U.S. over human rights, 
they are confined to certain elements of Congress and what it regards as 
biased and/or uninformed minor segments of public opinion."

Hill ended the cable on a pessimistic note: "While this conviction exists, 
it will be unrealistic and ineffective for this Embassy to press 
representations to the GOA over human-rights violations."

The documents are part of thousands of pages of secret archives on 
U.S.-Argentine diplomacy that were declassified following a visit by 
then-secretary of state Madeleine Albright to Buenos Aires in 2000, during 
which she promised their release.  The cables cited in this article were 
obtained by Insight in anticipation of their public release.

Just days after returning from his two-week stay in the United States, 
Foreign Minister Guzzetti told Hill that the clear impression he had 
received ó in contrast to what he was being told by the embassy ó was that 
the primary concern of the U.S.  government was not human rights but, 
rather, that the Argentine regime get the terrorist problem solved quickly.

According to the documents, Assistant Secretary Harry Shlaudeman, a key 
Kissinger aide, said he agreed that more representations by Hill "would not 
be useful at this point."

The recently declassified documents provide for the first time a complete 
record of the apparent double message the Argentine military received from 
U.S. policymakers.  They also are the first contemporaneous confirmation of 
the exchange between Kissinger and Guzzetti, which in the past was the 
motive for dispute and denial by the former secretary and his 
associates.  Furthermore, they shed light on the confidential actions of 
the conservative Hill, who the documents show tried unsuccessfully to halt 
the massacre, both by means of multiple private representations to the 
Argentine military and in a series of cables to Kissinger and his aides in 
Washington.

Ironically, left-wing Argentine journalists and historians have tried to 
paint Hill in a sinister light by attempting to compare what happened in 
Buenos Aires in 1976 with what is known to have happened three years 
earlier in neighboring Chile, where a CIA-backed coup overthrew the elected 
Marxist president Salvador Allende.  However, to date there is no evidence 
whatsoever that the United States either directed or promoted the coup 
against Peron's government, generally considered on all sides to have been 
incompetent and corrupt.

Hill, a businessman-diplomat, had been appointed by President Richard Nixon 
as envoy to Buenos Aires in 1973.  He had married into the politically 
conservative W.R.  Grace family, which had extensive business interests in 
Latin America.  He had served as ambassador in Costa Rica during the time 
of the 1954 CIA sponsored coup in Guatemala as well as in subsequent posts 
in Mexico, El Salvador and Spain.

"Hill's biography reads like a satirical left-wing caricature of a 'yanqui 
imperialist,' noted the muckracking newsletter Latin America. "He has 
long-standing connection with the United States security and intelligence 
establishment."

In private Kissinger, too, lampooned portrayals of Hill as a human-rights 
campaigner.  "The notion of Hill as a passionate human-rights advocate is 
news to all his former associates," Kissinger wrote in 1988 in a private 
letter obtained by Insight.  Kissinger's rendition of Hill runs counter to 
the testimony of several U.S.
diplomats and law-enforcement personnel who served with him in Buenos 
Aires, and to that of Juan de Onis, the New York Times correspondent in 
Argentina in 1976, all of whom attest to the conservative envoy's rights
activism.  And Hill's policy received strong support from U.S.  Sen. Jesse 
Helms (R.-S.C.), another Kissinger foe who met with the ambassador and 
Videla in Buenos Aires in July 1976, Capitol Hill sources tell Insight.

An early version of the conversations in which Kissinger is shown to have 
given a green light to the repression in Argentina was published in October 
1987 by The Nation, a magazine on the political left.  The principal source 
for that article was a memorandum from Patricia Derian, then assistant 
secretary of state for human rights, in which a conversation she had in 
early 1977 with Hill was outlined.  Derian's memorandum spoke of a first 
meeting between Kissinger and Guzzetti in June 1976 following the annual 
meeting of the Organization of American States in Santiago, Chile.

"The Argentines were very worried that Kissinger would lecture to them on 
human rights," according to the Derian memorandum.  "Guzzetti and Kissinger 
had a very long breakfast, but the secretary did not raise the 
subject.  Finally, Guzzetti did.  Kissinger asked how long it would take 
...  to clean up the problem.  Guzzetti replied that it would be done by 
the end of the year.  Kissinger approved.  In other words, Ambassador Hill 
explained, Kissinger gave the Argentines the green light....  Later 
...  the ambassador discussed the matter personally with Kissinger [who] 
...  confirmed the conversation."

In The Nation article Kissinger's spokeswoman denied Hill's claims. Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs William D. Rogers, who 
attended the Santiago meeting with Kissinger and Guzzetti, said that he did 
"not specifically remember" a meeting with Guzzetti, but added that 
Kissinger would have told his Argentine peer that the military should carry 
out the fight against terrorism "without abandoning the rule of law."

Shlaudeman rebutted Hill's criticisms in a memorandum the Kissinger aide 
sent to the high-flying diplomat the day after receiving Hill's critical 
cable in October 1976.  The views of Shlaudeman, who later served as 
U.S.  envoy to Buenos Aires during the military governments of Roberto 
Viola and Leopoldo Galtieri, were expressed in an "action memorandum" 
titled "Ambassador Hill and Human Rights in Argentina." The exchange
shows the intensity of the dispute between Hill and Kissinger.

"Bob Hill has registered for the record his concern for human rights in a 
bitter complaint about our purported failure to impress on Foreign Minister 
Guzzetti how seriously we view the rightist violence in Argentina," 
Shlaudeman wrote to Kissinger.  "I propose to respond for the record."

The declassified documents suggest that Kissinger did not continue to 
respond personally to Hill.  However, in a cable approved by Kissinger 
personally and dated Oct.  20, 1976, Shlaudeman claimed that Guzzetti may 
have misunderstood the message he had received because of his "poor grasp 
of English." Shlaudeman suggested that, "as in other circumstances you have 
undoubtedly encountered in your diplomatic career, Guzzetti heard only what 
he wanted to hear....  Guzzetti's interpretation is strictly his own."

Shlaudeman, referring to the luncheon he had with Guzzetti, wrote: "The 
'consensus of the meeting' on our side was that Guzzetti's assurances that 
a tranquil and violence-free Argentina is coming soon must prove a reality 
if we are to avoid serious problems between us."

However, Shlaudeman did not offer a correction of Guzzetti's understanding 
of his meetings with Kissinger and Rockefeller, and he did not authorize 
Hill to rectify Guzzetti's interpretations of any of the meetings as a 
necessary element for pressuring the military.  "With respect to your 
closing admonition about the futility of
representations," he told Hill, "we doubt that the GOA has all that many 
illusions.  Ö In the circumstances, I agree that the Argentines will have 
to make their own decisions and that further exhortations or generalized 
lectures from us would not be useful at this point."

Just as Hill feared, the massive atrocities committed by the military 
regime continued far beyond the end of 1976 and, by the time Kissinger's 
policy finally was reversed, it was too late to stanch the bloodshed.

Martin Edwin Andersen is the author of Dossier Secreto: Argentina and the 
Myth of the Dirty "War" and a forthcoming book, written in Spanish, on the 
history of the Argentine police (1880-1999).  He also is the
author of the article mentioned above in The Nation.  John Dinges, a 
professor of journalism at Columbia University in New York City, is the 
author of Assassination on Embassy Row on the Letelier case, and the 
forthcoming The Condor Years.

*************************************
6. Resolution of the Genevan Parliament
By Antonio Hodgers, Member of the Genevan Parliament


Following the arrest of Pinochet in London in 1998, the Genevan Parliament 
unanimously adopted a resolution (a non-legally binding but declaratory 
parliamentary act) demanding the extradition of the ex-dictator in the 
light of this judgement. This action was principally a symbolic one, 
supporting the developments in the fight against the impunity of dictators. 
A few months later, the 'Procureur de Genève' demanded that Pinochet be 
extradited to Switzerland, in relation to an open procedure from 1977 which 
led to the disappearance of a Swiss citizen at the hands of the Chilean 
junta during 'Operation Condor'.

Believing it necessary to try not only dictators themselves but also those 
who aided them in their rise to power and perpetration of criminal acts, a 
group of Members of Parliament submitted a resolution calling on the Swiss 
judicial authorities to consider the possible penal liability of Henry 
Kissinger in relation to this disappearance. The resolution was sent to the 
Human Rights Committee for further consideration.

While right-wing parliamentarians (in the majority) had few qualms about 
sentencing a fallen ex-dictator, criticising one of the most prestigious 
diplomatic representatives of the world's biggest power was a completely 
different matter. The preliminary debate was ideological: the right 
considered our resolution to be a pretext for a "rearguard anti-American 
struggle". Nevertheless, the committee's work resulted in a deeper 
understanding of the issue and, thanks to extracts from various documents 
published by the National Security Archive, revealed the important role US 
secret services had played in Pinochet's coup d'état.

The final parliamentary debate took place in October 2001. The right-wing 
majority, unsurprisingly, rejected the resolution. However, a certain level 
of recognition led to more moderate reasons being expressed for this 
rejection: "We share the concern for justice, but we can't agree on the 
means..." The quality of the debate was also remarked upon by the local press.

Even if the resolution had only symbolic value, the work carried out by the 
Human Rights Committee at least brought about a measure of understanding 
among the Genevan political community of the role of Kissinger in the 
southern Latin American arena.



PROPOSAL FOR A RESOLUTION  (412) calling on the judicial authorities to 
consider the liability of Mr Henry Kissinger, among others, for the crimes 
committed by the regime of Mr Augusto Pinochet.

(the entire resolution - in French - available under: 
<http://www.icai-online.org/kissingerwatch/resolutiongeneve.pdf>www.icai-online.org/kissingerwatch/resolutiongeneve.pdf) 


The GREAT COUNCIL (Parliament) of the Republic and canton of Geneva, 
considering:
- resolution 386 of the 23rd October 1998 calling for the extradition of Mr 
A. Pinochet in light of his trial in Spain, adopted unanimously by our 
Parliament;
- the documents published by the National Security Archive which clearly 
demonstrate the involvement of the US government, and in particular Mr H. 
Kissinger in his position as National Security Adviser and Secretary of 
State, in the collapse of Mr Salvador Allende's democratically elected 
Chilean government in 1973 and the military coup d'état of Mr A. Pinochet;
- the support of Mr H. Kissinger, among others, for the military regime and 
for the person of Mr A. Pinochet even though the crimes of the latter were 
internationally known;
- the existence, beyond doubt, of further series of documents, which still 
remain secret, in particular those relative to Operation Condor and the 
role of the US authorities in this, with whose help the Chilean authorities 
were able to get rid of Swiss national Mr Alexei Jaccard;
- the necessity of bringing to trial not only dictators but also those who 
aided their rise to power and perpetration of criminal acts, and the 
necessity of a legislative mechanism which works to this effect;

Decides to:
- communicate to the "Procurors" of the Rebublic and the Confederation, 
with reference to the steps introduced regarding Mr A. Pinochet and in the 
light of new documents published by the United States, our wish for it to 
be established to what extent the action of the latter, particularly those 
of Mr Kissinger, can be legally identified as complicity to the various 
acts of which Mr A. Pinochet has been condemned;

And calls on the federal authorities:
- to introduce as quickly as possible into our federal legislation the 
principle of "crime against humanity" and that of "complicity to crime 
against humanity";
- to put pressure on the United States government to publish all the 
documents relating to the facts surrounding A. Pinochet's coup d'etat and 
Operation Condor, in order to give our judiciary access to these documents.


*************************************
7. NPR Radio interview: "I am not a criminal"
<http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2001/aug/kissinger/010808.kissinger.html#timeline>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2001/aug/kissinger/010808.kissinger.html#timeline
click on "Listen to Michele Kelemen's report for All Things Considered"

In a recent NPR interview, Kissinger lambasts the idea of universal 
jurisdiction and says legal principles should not be used as weapons to 
settle old political scores.

"I think when every national judge can assume jurisdiction... the legal 
system will be a way of conducting political battles the various 
contestants will pursue each other in courts around the world," he said.

This is a very personal issue for Kissinger and a touchy matter for the 
United States. Three countries -- Chile, Argentina, and France -- want him 
to testify about disappearances and killings in Chile, when the Nixon 
administration was supporting the Pinochet government.

Some critics, like author Christopher Hitchens, also argue that the former 
secretary of state has a lot to answer for regarding the U.S. bombings of 
Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

*************************************
8. The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction / Extracts, entire article 
available under 
<http://www.icai-online.org/kissingerwatch/the_pitfalls_of_uj.pdf>www.icai-online.org/kissingerwatch/the_pitfalls_of_uj.pdf

by Henry Kissinger
Foreign Affairs, July / August 2001


RISKING JUDICIAL TYRANNY


In less than a decade, an unprecedented movement has emerged to submit 
international politics to judicial procedures. It has spread with 
extraordinary speed and has not been subjected to systematic debate, partly 
because of the intimidating passion of its advocates. To be sure, human 
rights violations, war crimes, genocide, and torture have so disgraced the 
modern age and in such a variety of places that the effort to interpose 
legal norms to prevent or punish such outrages does credit to its 
advocates. The danger lies in pushing the effort to extremes that risk 
substituting the tyranny of judges for that of governments; historically, 
the dictatorship of the virtuous has often led to inquisitions and even 
witch-hunts.


[&]


A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT


It is decidedly unfashionable to express any degree of skepticism about the 
way the Pinochet case was handled. For almost all the parties of the 
European left, Augusto Pinochet is the incarnation of a right-wing assault 
on democracy because he led a coup d'etat against an elected leader. At the 
time, others, including the leaders of Chile's democratic parties, viewed 
Salvador Allende as a radical Marxist ideologue bent on imposing a 
Castro-style dictatorship with the aid of Cuban-trained militias and Cuban 
weapons. This was why the leaders of Chile's democratic parties publicly 
welcomed-yes, welcomed-Allende's overthrow. (They changed their attitude 
only after the junta brutally maintained its autocratic rule far longer 
than was warranted by the invocation of an emergency.)


Disapproval of the Allende regime does not exonerate those who perpetrated 
systematic human rights abuses after it was overthrown. But neither should 
the applicability of universal jurisdiction as a policy be determined by 
one's view of the political history of Chile.


[&]


AN INDISCRIMINATE COURT


The ideological supporters of universal jurisdiction also provide much of 
the intellectual compass for the emerging International Criminal Court. 
Their goal is to criminalize certain types of military and political 
actions and thereby bring about a more humane conduct of international 
relations.


[&]


The advocates of universal jurisdiction argue that the state is the basic 
cause of war and cannot be trusted to deliver justice. If law replaced 
politics, peace and justice would prevail. But even a cursory examination 
of history shows that there is no evidence to support such a theory. The 
role of the statesman is to choose the best option when seeking to advance 
peace and justice, realizing that there is frequently a tension between the 
two and that any reconciliation is likely to be partial. The choice, 
however, is not simply between universal and national jurisdictions.


MODEST PROPOSALS


The precedent set by international tribunals established to deal with 
situations where the enormity of the crime is evident and the local 
judicial system is clearly incapable of administering justice, as in the 
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, have shown that it is possible to punish 
without removing from the process all political judgment and experience. In 
time, it may be possible to renegotiate the ICC statute to avoid its 
shortcomings and dangers. Until then, the United States should go no 
further toward a more formal system than one containing the following three 
provisions. First, the U.N. Security Council would create a Human Rights 
Commission or a special subcommittee to report whenever systematic human 
rights violations seem to warrant judicial action. Second, when the 
government under which the alleged crime occurred is not authentically 
representative, or where the domestic judicial system is incapable of 
sitting in judgment on the crime, the Security Council would set up an ad 
hoc international tribunal on the model of those of the former Yugoslavia 
or Rwanda. And third, the procedures for these international tribunals as 
well as the scope of the prosecution should be precisely defined by the 
Security Council, and the accused should be entitled to the due process 
safeguards accorded in common jurisdictions.


In this manner, internationally agreed procedures to deal with war crimes, 
genocide, or other crimes against humanity could become institutionalized. 
Furthermore, the one-sidedness of the current pursuit of universal 
jurisdiction would be avoided. This pursuit could threaten the very purpose 
for which the concept has been developed. In the end, an excessive reliance 
on universal jurisdiction may undermine the political will to sustain the 
humane norms of international behavior so necessary to temper the violent 
times in which we live.

 *************************************
9. The case for Universal Jurisdiction /  Extracts, entire article 
available under 
<http://www.icai-online.org/kissingerwatch/the_case_for_uj.pdf>www.icai-online.org/kissingerwatch/the_case_for_uj.pdf)

By Kenneth Roth,Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
Foreign Affairs, July / August 2001

Behind much of the savagery of modern history lies impunity. Tyrants commit 
atrocities, including genocide, when they calculate they can get away with 
them. Too often, dictators use violence and intimidation to shut down any 
prospect of domestic prosecution. Over the past decade, however, a slowly 
emerging system of international justice has begun to break this pattern of 
impunity in national courts.

[&]

In "The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction" (July/August 2001), former 
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger catalogues a list of grievances against 
the juridical concept that people who commit the most severe human rights 
crimes can be tried wherever they are found. But his objections are 
misplaced, and the alternative he proposes is little better than a return 
to impunity.

[&]

ORDER AND THE COURT

Kissinger's critique of universal jurisdiction has two principal targets: 
the soon-to-be-formed International Criminal Court and the exercise of 
universal jurisdiction by national courts. (Strictly speaking, the ICC will 
use not universal jurisdiction but, rather, a delegation of states' 
traditional power to try crimes committed on their own territory.) 
Kissinger claims that the crimes detailed in the ICC treaty are "vague and 
highly susceptible to politicized application." But the treaty's definition 
of war crimes closely resembles that found in the Pentagon's own military 
manuals and is derived from the widely ratified Geneva Conventions and 
their Additional Protocols adopted in 1977. Similarly, the ICC treaty's 
definition of genocide is borrowed directly from the Genocide Convention of 
1948, which the United States and 131 other governments have ratified and 
pledged to uphold, including by prosecuting offenders. The definition of 
crimes against humanity is derived from the Nuremberg Charter, which, as 
Kissinger acknowledges, proscribes conduct that is "self-evident[ly]" wrong.

[&]

NO PLACE TO HIDE

National courts come under Kissinger's fire for selectively applying 
universal jurisdiction. He characterizes the extradition request by a 
Spanish judge seeking to try former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet for 
crimes against Spanish citizens on Chilean soil as singling out a 
"fashionably reviled man of the right." But Pinochet was sought not, as 
Kissinger writes, "because he led a coup d'etat against an elected leader" 
who was a favorite of the left. Rather, Pinochet was targeted because 
security forces under his command murdered and forcibly "disappeared" some 
3,000 people and tortured thousands more.

[&]

Until the ICC treaty is renegotiated to avoid what Kissinger sees as its 
"shortcomings and dangers," he recommends that the U.N. Security Council 
determine which cases warrant an international tribunal. That option was 
rejected during the Rome negotiations on the ICC because it would allow the 
council's five permanent members, including Russia and China as well as the 
United States, to exempt their nationals and those of their allies by 
exercising their vetoes.

As a nation committed to human rights and the rule of law, the United 
States should be embracing an international system of justice, even if it 
means that Americans, like everyone else, might sometimes be scrutinized.

*************************************
10. Websites relating to Henry Kissinger

Needless to say that we are not responsible for the content of listed websites:

College of William and Mary. Henry Kissinger is not our Chancellor!

· 
<http://www.kissinger.20m.com./index.html>http://www.kissinger.20m.com./index.html,

East Timor Action Network

· 
<http://www.etan.org/news/kissinger/>http://www.etan.org/news/kissinger/

National Security Archive

        <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

The Rogues' Gallery of the Global Policy Forum

· 
<http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/wanted/wntdindx.htm>http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/wanted/wntdindx.htm

Third World Traveller

· 
<http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/HKissinger.html>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/HKissinger.html

Henry Kissinger: War Criminal or Old-Fashioned Murderer?

· 
<http://www.eclipse.net/~tgardnet/kiss/kisskill.html>http://www.eclipse.net/~tgardnet/kiss/kisskill.html

Wanted War Crimes: Henry Kissinger

· 
<http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html>http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html

Appeal to revoke the 1973 Nobel Prize for Peace assigned to H. Kissinger

· 
<http://www.peacelink.it/tematiche/latina/nobel/elenco.php3>http://www.peacelink.it/tematiche/latina/nobel/index.php3


Website about Christopher Hitchens's bestseller "The Trial of Henry Kissinger"

· 
<http://www.trialofhenrykissinger.org/>http://www.trialofhenrykissinger.org/

Hitchens, book reviews etc.

· 
<http://www.enteract.com/~peterk/henry.html>http://www.enteract.com/~peterk/henry.html

Hitchens' correspondence with Kissinger's attorneys, including introductory 
note, comments, and primary sources

· 
<http://www.enteract.com/~peterk/corrintro.html>http://www.enteract.com/~peterk/corrintro.html

Bilderberg Commission

· 
<http://www.bilderberg.org/kissing.htm>http://www.bilderberg.org/kissing.htm



*************************************
11. FAIR USE NOTICE: This bulletin contains copyrighted material the use of 
which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We 
distribute this material without profit and believe this constitutes a fair 
use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If 
you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your 
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright 
owner.