I had thought this guy had slunk to some country that had a non extradition treaty but it seems he is still active in world affairs. so I did a little reasearch and it seems this guy is about as bad as Saddam Hussain and I was wondering why we continue to harbor him. Check out this link and see for yourself. http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html

An American politician a war criminal thats just crazy...I can't believe it

I think a good case can be made that Henry came damned close to being one...if more facts were known....

Henry Kissinger: War Criminal or Old-Fashioned Murderer?
Incredibly, Henry Kissinger—the man who rivals Pol Pot for the dubious honor of being the person responsible for the death of the largest number of innocent people in South East Asia (and far surpasses Pol Pot in criminality when one factors in Kissinger's various levels of responsibility for wholesale slaughter and repression in other parts of the world)—still wields significant power in the United States; but his role as eager facilitator of mass murder, totalitarian repression and other atrocities is never discussed in polite society. Although Kissinger is a frequent guest on Nightline, where he is treated as a harmless and venerable elder statesman, his friend Ted Koppel has never brought up the topic of Kissinger's responsibility for the horrifying deaths of so many in Asia, Latin America and other areas of the world. It is safe to assume that Koppel has no intention of doing so in the future.

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

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley101802.asp

Peacemaker or war criminal? One of the most powerful statesmen of the 20th century, Henry Kissinger is the also one of the most controversial. The former U.S. Secretary of State was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but has more recently been summoned in five countries to answer questions in the ongoing investigation of human rights abuses by Augusto Pinochet’s regime in Chile (those summons currently remain unanswered).

Journalist Christopher Hitchens makes no bones about his answer to that question. He states boldly that Kissinger should be tried for war crimes, and his arguments are examined by filmmakers Gibney and Jarecki in their new documentary. Hitchens, who wrote a book with the same title, focuses his case against Kissinger based on his role in the assassination of a Chilean general in 1970, the secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969, and the sale of U.S. weapons to Indonesia, which were used in the East Timor massacre of 1975.

Gibney and Jarecki use archival footage and new interviews with important players in the events, offering a revelatory portrait of Kissinger during these years. Indeed, for them, the personal is political, and they give insights into how Kissinger’s early experiences of the Holocaust may have influenced his later political decisions.
http://www.hrw.org/iff/2002/ny/trials.html

The desire to do something about Henry Kissinger is, for many, a popular pursuit; for some, an obsession. He is the enemy, for reasons many of them obvious: He is a Harvard intellectual who served Richard Nixon intimately and survived. And of course he was at the right hand of the president for three years of the reviled war in Vietnam. Resentment is certainly fostered by facial expressions seen as registering Shylockean self-satisfaction, and verbal adroitness that sometimes seems to be bent on squaring circles, a demeanor that enemies will liken to that of the Vicar of Bray, and advocating what they see as Johnnie Cochran explaining the innocence of O. J. Simpson.

The latest expeditionary force against the enemy was initiated by Christopher Hitchens, a learned and resourceful moralist of exhibitionist inclinations who picks his enemies with brio and, a few years ago, undertook a book to the effect that Mother Teresa was a mountebank. The Kissinger offensive was done in Harper's magazine, and became a book. The call, no less, was to declare Henry Kissinger a war criminal and urge international courts to try him for, among other things, murder and kidnapping.

That was a tall order of Hitchens, perhaps even outdoing the call to defrock Mother Teresa — but the anti-Kissinger reserves were there, anxious to serve.

What then happened was that the BBC thought the whole idea cinematic, which it is: The Trials of Henry Kissinger is playing in art movie houses. Movie clips of Kissinger and the company he has kept, and the public-policy contentions in which he has figured, are abundant, and compliant in gathering together grand prosecutorial mosaics. The complaints are that Kissinger was culpable in illegal bombings of Cambodia resulting in 3 million deaths; in the invasion of East Timor by the Indonesian military resulting in 100,000 deaths; and in subverting 1968 peace talks which, if concluded, would have spared the 200,000+ lives lost before the Vietnam War's end in 1972.

There isn't, of course, going to be any such war-crimes trial of Henry Kissinger — forget that, just to begin with. The man responsible for Vietnam and Cambodia was President Richard Nixon. The man responsible for East Timor is President Gerald Ford. Nixon is gone, but why isn't Hitchens calling for the trial of Gerald Ford as a war criminal? The answer is that Mr. Ford is not, so to speak, a photogenic war criminal, someone the sight of whom behind bars or swinging on a noose would give Jacobinical satisfaction. What is contemplated by the Hitchens offensive is, quite simply, denigration.

Henry Kissinger, in the Hitchens-BBC production, is called "the most conspicuous American statesman of the 20th century." That's true, as also the adage that the bigger they come the harder they fall. Kissinger's extraordinary ascendancy and his spectacular achievements rouse the iconoclastic spirits. In order to achieve the desired effects, the prosecution had to decry not only his policies, but his character. Thus it is said that he was ambitious — which is certainly true, as also of Abraham Lincoln. That he was duplicitous, dishonest, deceptive, and, strange to add, disloyal. If he was disloyal, why did he stick by Nixon until the end? And how explain that as soon as Nixon was out of office, President Ford immediately renewed Kissinger's franchise? There are people around who know something about Kissinger's loyalty who were not invited to testify in the BBC production.

If the book and the movie had settled for charging that Kissinger was from time to time detected speaking out of both sides of his mouth, the reader and viewer might have nodded and said: Yes: That is what diplomats are often called upon to do. Another word for it is: They negotiate. People who refuse to do that, meet the fate of Coriolanus.

Amazon.com lists 935 entries under "Nixon," and the wars will rage 100 years from now on the great events in which his secretary of state figured. Was the bombing of Cambodia a legitimate exercise of military power, in a contest in which no declaration of war had been voted? Was the shipment of arms to the generals in Indonesia an endorsement of the genocidal policies to which they were put? Was the shipment of arms to Chilean dissidents a warrant for the execution of a Chilean general?

These questions can be explored usefully, but not in phony theatrical arraignments done mostly for the satisfaction of people engaged in private wars against Henry Kissinger. A Canadian reviewer of the Kissinger film wrote wryly, "If one considers Dr. Kissinger's policies of accommodation with various Communist powers, it would be easier to suggest he is a peace criminal." The historic view that will prevail is that he was the most consistent and resourceful anti-Communist on the scene during a decade in which two presidents sought out his counsel, and the republic profited from it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley101802.asp

Published on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 in the Toronto Globe & Mail
Is Henry Kissinger a War Criminal?
Thirty years after the death of Charles Horman inspired a bestseller and an Oscar-winning movie, his widow still pursues those she believes are really to blame -- including the former U.S. secretary of state. It's one reason the quest for international justice makes the United States so nervous.

by Marcus Gee

THE ACCUSED
Henry Alfred Kissinger, former U.S. Secretary of state, national security adviser and Nobel laureate

THE ACCUSATIONS
Complicity in coup against Chilean government plus the "killing, injury and displacement" of three million people during Vietnam War.



http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0611-03.htm

The U.S. journalist and filmmaker had been abducted and killed after the Chilean military overthrew president Salvador Allende in September, 1973. Six months later, his body arrived by plane in a crude wooden crate with "Charles Horman from Santiago" scrawled on the side.

As the makeshift coffin was unloaded at Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, N.Y., the driving rain washed the words away, sending trails of black ink down the box. It was April 13, 1974.

Even before Mr. Horman's widow, Joyce, found herself standing in the rain that day, she had vowed that no one would ever erase the memory of what had been done to her husband.

She has been true to her word.

In the chaos that followed General Augusto Pinochet's decision to depose Mr. Allende on Sept. 11, 1973, hundreds of the leftist president's supporters were taken away to be tortured, beaten or killed. Mr. Horman, an Allende sympathizer living in Santiago, was one of them.

In the month that followed, Ms. Horman, then 29, and her father-in-law, Ed, searched frantically for Mr. Horman -- an ordeal dramatized in the Oscar-winning 1982 film Missing, starring Sissy Spacek and Jack Lemmon.

The movie ends when Joyce and Ed discover that Charles is dead, killed by the military and his body hidden in a wall at a Santiago cemetery. But Joyce Horman's search continues. For 28 years, she has struggled to track down those who killed the man she loved. And the person at the center of her quest is none other than Henry Alfred Kissinger.

A leading citizen of the world's most powerful nation, Mr. Kissinger served as U.S. Secretary of state and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in the same year as the coup in Chile. He was also national security adviser to president Richard Nixon, and Ms. Horman believes that he and other U.S. officials were deeply involved in the events that cost her husband his life.

It has been almost 30 years, and she doesn't seem bitter. At 57, she is pleasant and straightforward, in her stylish glasses with owlish frames, and has friends, a career and a social life. Nor does she seem obsessed with her dead husband. No photographs of him are to be seen in her bright apartment on Manhattan's Upper East Side.

Even so, the events of 1973 still cast a dark shadow. Asked what she misses most about Charles, she dissolves into tears and then explains: "He was intelligent, friendly, interesting -- he just loved life, and that's why his friends loved him."

Of course, nothing can replace the life she and her husband might have had. All that she wants now, she says, is the simple truth -- and that leads to Mr. Kissinger.

"There's no way around him," she says. "He is the most responsible person for the behavior of the U.S. government in Chile at that time. He needs to be put on trial."

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0611-03.htm