Kissinger's Supposed Crimes

Kissinger has passed away. I strongly suggest reading Diplomacy, which is a seminal work on the subject.

He is widely accused of having committed numerous war crimes. Ok, let's discuss Kissinger's crimes. Here is a good summary. I numbered them in bold and red...

During his brief tenure at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy, Kissinger got a lot done. In his first two years in office, he helped Richard Nixon 1. sabotage Vietnamese peace talks for his own political gain, 2. expanded that war into Laos and Cambodia (the destabilizing effects of which would pave the way for the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the death of up to two million people), and 3. advocated the bombing of, in his own words, “anything that moves.”

In 1971, Kissinger 4. backed Pakistan in its war against Bangladesh despite evidence of massacre and rape. In ‘73, he 5. orchestrated a military coup against the democratically elected Allende regime of Chile, installing in its stead the violently oppressive Pinochet dictatorship. And in ‘75, the then-Secretary of State 6. lent his tacit support to President Suharto of Indonesia―himself a despot already responsible for the mass killings of hundreds of thousands―in the deadly conquest of East Timor. Kissinger himself, in proposing an intervention in Cyprus, summed up his philosophy best: “The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer"

You'll notice that his support of Suharto is listed as crime number 6. as he was killing people in East Timor.  So, where is Kissinger's support for Mao listed as a crime as he killed an estimated 80% of the population of Tibet in the 1950s?  It's not like no one was aware of what happened in Tibet by the early 1970's.  Mao was a Commie, so his mass murders are OK, and Kissinger's playing nicey-nice with Mao is forgiven. 

The problem that I have with all but two of these six crimes is that they aren't actually crimes, and even those two are questionable. 

As a starter, bombing in war is not illegal. His advocacy of the bombing of Cambodia and Laos is the one of two acts that I think could be a crime, as the USA was not at war with these countries at the time.  The fact that they were both being used as supply routes for the North Vietnamese could excuse this as, again, bombing is not illegal, and countries are not allowed to to permit their territory to be used against another territory as a base for war-like activities. Still, that may be a weak defence.

Oh ya! Obama killed thousands of people in countries against which the USA was not at war at the time, with drones and Hellfire missiles. If Kissinger is a criminal, then so is Obama.

Obama is a war criminal?!  NOOOOOOOO! He's sunshine and light, and he's a Left Democrat and Hope Incarnate, so we give him a pass. 

Oh, this from the Council on Foreign Relations "The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians. As he reportedly told senior aides in 2011: “Turns out I'm really good at killing people. Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.” 

While Kissinger only set policy and let others implement his policies, every single one of these 542 attacks was personally authorized by Obama himself...he came as close as you can to actually pulling the trigger.

Not a "strong suit" for Obama...isn't he from Chicago?

The other alleged crime that could be real was the overthrow of Allende.  This was undoubtedly a crime in Chile. It could also at least theoretically be a violation of the Neutrality Act, 1794. Numerous individuals have been charged under that act and its successor with attempting to overthrow foreign governments. Given that it was the US government itself that was doing this, however, it probably did not constitute a crime as the point of that act is to leave nasty business like overthrowing foreign governments to the US Government, not to individuals.

There is also a UN Resolution from 1965 called the "Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty General Assembly resolution 2131 (XX)" It says this..."No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any State."  

This seems to do it, but the USA is not bound by international law unless it adopts it into its domestic law and I'm not sure they adopted that resolution.  However, the UN Charter Article 2(4) and Article 2(7), also prohibit the UN as well as states from intervening in the domestic affairs of other states except where there is collective action. Based on this, it seems that his advocacy of the overthrow of Allende did constitute a crime. However, it is the country, not the person, that is culpable when there are violations against the Charter. I can't see how this is a personal crime committed by Kissinger himself.

I'll summarize his supposed crimes here - 

- sabotaging peace talks that didn't fit the internal politics of his country - not a crime;

- supporting bombing in a war against a belligerent - not a crime;

- supporting one side in a civil war, where there were war crimes being committed - not a crime;

- supporting bombing of third party countries which were aiding another country in attacking their neighbor, where the USA had an alliance with that same neighbor - may be a crime;

- supporting a dictator who was committing war crimes - not a crime;

- supporting the overthrow of a Commie - may be a crime of America but likely not Kissinger personally....

Ironically, he is almost always implicitly blamed for the Khmer Rouge coming to power and for everything that came afterward. This is idiotic. Um, like, didn't the USSR, North Vietnam and especially China support that despicable outfit in the overthrow of the recognized government of Cambodia at the time?  If so, why are they not listed as criminals as this is exactly the same supposed crime that Kissinger apparently committed in overthrowing in Allende in Chile?

Why, I ask? 

Because in the West, with its slavish adherence to "liberation journalism" where all West = Bad and all "Revolution" = Good, Commies simply didn't commit war crimes, only guys like Kissinger did.

He lived to 100. Good on him.

Say Hello To President Trump (er Kennedy?), 2024!

The game is afoot! 

Prognosticators are prognosticating about who will win the next US presidential election.

Let's take a stab at this, with key points in bold and italics. Caveat - This discussion ignores the possibility that Trump may be in prison during the next election, and just looks at polls!

An average of recent public opinion polls gives Trump a 2.3% lead over Biden at the moment, and many people on both sides of the aisle are saying that Biden should step aside as he is too old.

The day he becomes the nominee, the Democrats will get in line behind him, and all discussion of his age will end. This is mostly a diversion.

Unless Biden dies, his age is irrelevant.

An average of recent public opinion polls also gives the undecided and independents as about 9% of the population. The independents and undecided do not like Trump and all the "stuff" that surrounds him. They have swung the vote decisively in favour of the Democrats in recent elections, and one would expect this to continue in 2024.

As well, American elections since Roe v Wade was reversed have witnessed the aggressive mobilization of pro-abortion voters, which has dramatically favored Democratic candidates. This, coupled with the dislike of Trump by independents and the undecided, contributed to a series of unexpected election triumphs by the Democrats.

Absent other candidates who take votes from Biden, the swing votes of undecideds and independents to his cause and against Trump, plus the mobilization of the pro-abortion vote, should give him the presidency in 2024.

But the plot thickens.

Robert F Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West have announced that they will contest the presidency in 2024. They are virtually guaranteed to be on the ballot in most if not all states. These gentlemen change the calculus quite considerably.  

Some polls have Kennedy getting as high as 21% of the popular vote, and West getting as high as 4%. Given the divisiveness in the US polity right now, I think they may do far worse as voters coalesce around their champions, and avoid voting for candidates who simply can't win. (Note - there is a "wild card" discussion below that explores an alternative to this.)

Nonetheless, while adding Kennedy alone does not change things too much between Biden and Trump - maybe a slight advantage for Trump - with West in the race, Biden loses significantly more votes than Trump does. In this situation, Biden loses about 6% of the popular vote to Trump's 3 - 4%. West's assumed attractiveness to Black voters and to other voters of Left-wing persuasion will mean that Biden's advantages courtesy of the independents and undecided not liking Trump and courtesy of the pro-abortion vote will be overwhelmed.

With Kennedy and West in the race, and particularly West, Trump will eek out a slim victory in the 2024 presidential election.

Note that Jill Stein has also just announced that she will run for the Green Party in the 2024 presidential election. There isn't much polling about how this may affect the race, but one would have to think that she can only pull votes from Biden as Trump is basically the antithesis of "Green".

With both West and Stein running in the 2024 presidential election, Trump should be the odds-on favourite to win - they are "Biden killers".

What about Manchin?  

The "No Label's" people have been exploring the possibility of running a serious independent candidate, and Joe Manchin has announced that he will not run for re-election as a senator in 2024, making him the presumptive candidate. There isn't much polling looking at the effects of a Manchin candidacy, but the polling that does exist suggests next to no effect on the outcome between Biden and Trump. - Manchin would get between 5% and 10% of the vote, taking about equally from both of the other candidates. 

Note that Manchin would be running for No Labels based, in part, on the idea that Biden and Trump are too old, and that a younger third party candidate has a chance of succeeding at becoming president based on age alone. Um, like...Joe Manchin is 76 years old! No Labels looks to me like a complete waste of time, unless they put forward someone entirely different.

What about Cheney? 

Liz Cheney is the quintessential old school Republican, who essentially led the January 6th congressional committee that reached so many damning conclusions about Trump and his entourage. She does not want Trump to become president again. If she tossed her hat into the ring, one would think that she would attract most, if not all, of the anti-Trump Republican vote, and ruin his chances of a repeat performance in the White House. 

In fact, all polling reviewed for this blurb suggests that her candidacy - absent candidates other than Biden and Trump - almost guarantees a victory by Trump, with him getting 3% to 8% more of the popular vote than Biden. One has to wonder if this would be because the independent and undecided voters would move to her and not Biden, thereby starving him of that crucial support?

Cheney will not be announcing a run at the White House in 2024, and if Manchin does, it will be essentially irrelevant for the outcome of the election.

In conclusion...

Donald Trump will likely be the next President of the United States.

HOWEVER! There is a wildcard here.

Kennedy is nuts, but he is also interesting as he is running at a time when much of America is arguably also nuts. In sum, he is a Right-leaning conspiracy theorist with the surname of America's most famous Democratic politician and an icon of the Left.

If Kennedy can: 1. position himself as the champion of conspiracies, especially as related to COVID-19, and thereby grab some of the vote on the Right from Trump; and 2. also position himself as an icon of the Left -  especially on issues like the environment and abortion - and grab some of the vote from Biden and others; and if he can 3. seem like a real younger alternative to Trump and Biden and take much of the independent and undecided vote, well then, he may have a real chance at this!

His name alone seems to get him 10% of the vote. A six-way race - Trump, Biden, Kennedy, Stein, Manchin and West - could go as follows (pure speculation based very roughly on existing polling): Manchin - 8%; Stein - 1%; and West - 4%. They would effectively eat away at much of Biden's support, meaning Biden could end up as low as 28% - 30%. This leaves about 60% of the vote, of which maybe 7% could still be undecided and independent given the alternatives to Biden. 

What could happen with Kennedy in such a race vis a vis Trump?

Trump's "Always Trump" or core support is between 25% and 30% of the Republican Party, and he is polling at about 65% nationally of Republican Party supporters versus other GOP presidential candidates. With Republicans making up about 45% of voters, this suggest that Trump's rock solid base is about 12% of the electorate, and very strong support for him would come from about 30% of voters. 

If Kennedy could take essentially all of the undecided and independents left over above (7%) plus gain support from name recognition (10%), and convince some of the electorate who are very strong Trump supporters to support him, perhaps emphasizing Trump's role in developing COVID-19 vaccines (say 4%), as well as taking even more support from Biden than will be taken by Manchin, West and Stein (say 4%), perhaps pushing Biden as low as 25% to 27%, then it is conceivable that Biden, Trump and Kennedy would all be at about 25% - 30% of the popular vote. Yes, this is a stretch, but some polls already have Kennedy as high as 21% (...and, OK, as low as 7%)! 

This situation would be resolved state by state in the Electoral College where the overall national percentage of the electorate voting for one candidate or another is not the key consideration, and where the candidate with a slightly lower percentage of national support could still win, the point being that...

...If Kennedy can position himself carefully between the conspiracy theorists on the one hand and icon-loving Democrats on the other, while emphasizing that he is younger than Biden or Trump and thereby getting most of the undecided and independent vote, along with getting name recognition votes, then he could become a real threat, and this election would be a complete crap shoot. 

It is actually conceivable that Kennedy could win.

And if Kennedy were to win, the two places on earth that he should avoid visiting are Dallas and Los Angeles.  .

 

.  

 .    

HAMAS and ISRAEL

UPDATE!  This is evolving!

This is worth a look...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egipqa0ZhUk

Questions...

1. Are the hostages even in Gaza now?  It makes sense for Hamas to move them to their allies outside of Gaza, where the Israelis can't get to them.

2. Did the Israeli security service know about this, but chose to let it happen so that they can have an excuse to deal with Hamas once and for all, consistent with preferences of the very right wing Israeli government?  The Israelis are the best in the world at thwarting this kind of thing.  Is it believable that they were this incompetent?

3. Will the Left supporters of Gaza and the Palestinians in the West eat their words of support for the violence - blaming all of it on Israel - when they find out what is likely happening to those many attractive young women who Hamas chose to take captive rather than kill?  Isn't it obvious what is happening to them?  In the minds of these people, who are likely on the cutting edge of women's rights, is sexual violence against women actually OK, just as long as they are Jews?  

Who else thought that?

4. What does Israel intend after it evicts Hamas from Gaza?  Palestinians are being encouraged to flee to the border with Egypt, or to actually go to Egypt to avoid the bloodshed.  Does Israel intend to stay in Gaza and to annex the territory after effectively evicting the population?  

Sides are coalescing....

The Charges Against Trump

Trump has been charged on three separate occasions now. 

The first charges relate to misstatement of business expenses in corporate books concerning paying off hookers, with those expenses amounting to some hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

The second set of charges relates to the misappropriation and illegal storage and sharing of government secret and top secret information, including charges related to intentionally thwarting attempts to retrieve that information on the part of the government. 

The third set of charges are: i) conspiracy to violate civil rights; ii) conspiracy to defraud the government; iii) the corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding; and iv) conspiracy to carry out such obstruction. 

Let me deal with each of these in turn. 

Leveling charges against anyone related to the misstatement of a few hundred thousand dollars in the business records of a corporation that does millions of dollars worth of business each year is total bullshit. The normal course of action is to simply ask the company to properly record these expenses, and pay any associated taxes.  This is an obvious witch hunt.

The second set of charges are more serious, but we know that Joe Biden and Mike Pence also illegally and intentionally retained and improperly stored at least tens of secret and top secret documents. While the aspect of intentionally interfering with attempts to retrieve this information makes what Trump did different from the other two, unless the Department of Justice was going to charge the other two gentlemen with having committed the same crimes as Trump, they should not have laid any of these charges.

This is because the aspect of intentionally thwarting attempts to retrieve the information probably only matters if the charges of illegally retaining the information go ahead first. They should not have gone ahead as Trump deserved the same treatment as the other two men. The fact that Biden and Pence cooperated in returning the documents means nothing, as cooperating with the cops after you have been nabbed goes to sentencing after you have been convicted, not to whether you will be charged in the first place. Trump deserved the same "light touch" treatment from the cops as Biden and Pence here, and he did not get it. 

The third set of charges are shocking, not because of what they are, but because of what they are not. In short, Trump has not been charged with sedition or conspiracy to commit sedition.  

If the Department of Justice does not have enough evidence to charge him with these crimes - "sedition" and related conspiracy to commit sedition are what claiming that January 6th was a "coup" are all about - then they should have pursued only Trump's allies here, and not charged him with anything.  As it is, he has been charged with a "sub-plot" of charges that say just about nothing regarding what he actually did and planned on January 6, 2021. 

Trump has much to answer for regarding his business dealings; the secret and top secret documents that he retained; and especially regarding what he was up to on January 6th. The charges that he faces regarding all three of these issues point at irrelevancies; they point to unequal treatment compared to similarly situated individuals like Biden and Pence; and they literally scream that he insulated himself from the plotters around January 6th so well that the Department of Justice does not have enough evidence to pursue the only charges that matters here, which are potential charges related to sedition.

In light of the above, Trump is poised to make the various Department of Justice and other officials who are pursuing him look foolish.  

What happens in Georgia could be a different matter... 

We shall see.