Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Kissinger on Trial. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 4 page essay that looks at two texts, Christopher Hitchens' The Trial of Henry Kissinger and Peter Maguire's Law and War, an American Story. The writer draws on these texts to examine whether or not Kissinger should be brought to trial for immoral actions committed during the Vietnam and cold war eras, as Hitchens asserts. The writer argues that it was Presidents Nixon and Ford who should be held accountable, and that, taking Maguire's text into account, the actions of this era were in accordance with US past history. No additional sources cited.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khkistr.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
holds Kissinger personally responsible for many of the nefarious activities of the US government during the Vietnam era and the Cold War. He calls for Kissinger to answer for his
deeds to an international military tribunal (IMT). Is this a legitimate position? Certainly, the forum provided by an IMT, as described by Peter Maguire in his text Law and War,
An American Story is the most logical expression of jurisprudence in which to judge Kissingers guilt or innocence. However, the question remains as to whether or not such an action
is justified. Hitchens (2001) makes a persuasive argument and his list of atrocities performed under Kissingers leadership is extensive. According to Hitchens, Kissinger is guilty of: 1. the
intentional mass extermination of civilian populations in Indochina; 2. intentional collusion in mass murder and also in assassination in Bangladesh; 3. personally planning the murder of the leader of a
democratic nation, Chile; 4. personal involvement in planning to assassinate the leader of the democratic nation of Cyprus; 5. enabling genocide in East Timor; 6. personal involvement in a plan
to kidnap and murder a journalist living in Washington, DC (2001). Maguires analysis of the stance that the US has taken toward law and war points out that
there has been real "tension between Americas much-vaulted ethical and legal principles and its practical policy interests" (2000, p. 6). In other words, the US has historically approached war from
very different stances that were dependent on the enemy and the international situation at the time. For example, treaties that ended conflicts with Great Britain were regarded in altogether different
light than treaties that were made with Native Americans. As this demonstrates, the US has historically not been consistent in its actions concerning war. Maguire gives example after example
...