6 ms·

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." -- H. Kissinger. It's sad this deplorable human being was given the Nobel Peace Pr

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." -- H. Kissinger. It's sad this deplorable human being was given the Nobel Peace Prize.

DirectorKrennic 3y ago
The quote is apocryphal. There is no evidence he said that. And if he did, it was in jest.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  Plenty of evidence he did it, however.
- runarberg 3y ago
  Kissinger him self claims to have said it. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html#efmCS3CUB https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html#ef...
  - monetus 3y ago
    502 error
    - harry8 3y ago
      host wikileaks.org wikileaks.org has address 80.81.248.21 wikileaks.org has address 51.159.197.136 wikileaks.org mail is handled by 10 reykjavik.spp.is. For comparison in case your DNS provider is doing something that you might not care for.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
      Works for me, here's the relevant segment: Esenbel: The Europeans should find ways to meet quick needs; for example, the Air Force needs spare parts. For other items that they can't find in the stocks, maybe you could make a deal with the Dutch or others to send it here. Macomber: That is illegal. Kissinger: Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I'm afraid to say things like that.
    - isleyaardvark 3y ago
      If it counts for anything, at least a journalist saw the relevant quote in the same link: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/about-that-kissinger-quote-neil-gorsuch-likes/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/about-that-kissing... I got a 502 in Firefox but it worked in Safari.
  - 1letterunixname 3y ago
    “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” ― Henry Kissinger
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  … and if it wasn’t in jest: “sticks and stones”.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  I think you're supposed to wait until after someone proves that they said it to claim that it was a joke. I'd add that Kissinger had a decent sense of humor that he did not mind using glibly.
- RIMR 3y ago
  I don't think "He didn't say that, but if he did he didn't mean it" is a great argument, especially since there is proof that he did say it in the documents linked to these articles... It's also clear that that he did tons of illegal/unconstitutional things in his career, so it's pretty clear that he did say it and meant it, because it was an accurate portrayal of his behavior.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
    The Narcissist's Prayer comes to mind. "That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it."
moffkalast 3y ago
Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy, and we shall have... peace.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  Words are indirect references to ideas. For some, particularly oppressors, peace references the idea of lack of physical violence. To other peace references the presence of justice. If someone thinks peace is lack of violence, how do you even communicate with them when you think peace is the presence of justice. To the former war violates peace, to the latter war is required for peace.
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    > If someone thinks peace is lack of violence, how do you even communicate with them when you think peace is the presence of justice. how about just say "justice" or "presence of justice" instead of trying to redefine the word peace? Then, for example, the catch phrase "no justice, no peace" will make sense, it means "if we don't get justice, we will not be peaceful"
    - hayst4ck 3y ago
      In the context of slavery, when the slave owner tells a slave what to do, and they don't fight back, I wouldn't call that peace. In the context of Taiwan, I wouldn't call China's coercion of Taiwan peace even though guns aren't firing. In the context of Ukraine, I wouldn't call the period after Russia's invasion of Ukraine to seize Crimea "peace" even though it was just "little green men" walking into Crimea. I wouldn't call the south china sea situation peaceful. So you're unwittingly making the point I'm making. I am not redefining any words, the reference in my head points to a different idea altogether. To me, you are redefining peace in the same way to you I am redefining peace. Both of us came into this conversation with the word peace being an indirect reference to a different idea. For me it's an indirect reference to the idea of justice. For you it's an indirect reference to lack of violence. When I try to answer if a situation is peaceful, I try to estimate the injustice. When you try to determine if a situation is peaceful, you look for the amount of physical violence. That means to me oppression/coercion is violence, but you might be the type of person to justify oppression because to fight oppression means to violate "peace." The idea of what word references what idea is a social process. So if you want to communicate or achieve understanding, you have to understand what the ideas represented by various words are. That's why so many philosophical conversations start with "well how do you define ____?" "how would we test that definition?". > "if we don't get justice, we will not be peaceful" So it leads us to different understandings, because the way I read it, they feel attacked and are saying if there is not justice we will defend ourselves. "no justice, no peace" -> "if there is not justice, there cannot be peace" -> "we will fight for justice". Your phrasing emphasizes the lack of peacefulness. My phrasing emphasizes the lack of justice. Why is it a "catch phrase" to you, but a "battle cry" to me? What do those words betray about the ideas that exist in our heads. What happens if two people in geographically distinct locations learn different definitions for words. What happens if people in Florida learn that the definition of "woke" is "a crazy liberal idea" while the people in California learn that the definition of woke is "understanding systemic racism." The word "woke" literally points to a different idea based on the social context you grew up in. The idea of peace is different if the social context that taught you vocabulary is one of being the oppressor rather than one of being oppressed. To the oppressor, peace is violated when someone doesn't want to be oppressed anymore. To the oppressed, peace is violated when someone used the threat of force in a bid to control them.
1letterunixname 3y ago
It's still not too late to bring the blood-money profiteering war criminals Kissinger and Cheney before The Hague. While the US isn't a signatory to the ICC, a cargo van and a private jet would solve that. They should die in custody and disgrace while Snowden and Assange should be free.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > It's still not too late to bring the blood-money profiteering war criminals Kissinger and Cheney before The Hague. While the US isn't a signatory to the ICC, a cargo van and a private jet would solve that. There's also the substantial problem that the war crimes (and crimes of aggression) that each is most clearly responsible for are not within ICC jurisdiction for geographical and/or temporal reasons. (Becauae the UK is and was at the time a Rome Statute party, the ICC did have investigate British potential violations in Iraq.)
  - andyjohnson0 3y ago
    > Becauae the UK is and was at the time a Rome Statute party, the ICC did have investigate British potential violations in Iraq. Some of those possible violations were no doubt awful, but as usual the national leadership layer of the winning sides was untouched. I still have hopes that Tony Blair will one day face the punishment he deserves.
    - poisonarena 3y ago
      relevent song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUtikPtdT-s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUtikPtdT-s
- science4sail 3y ago
  > While the US isn't a signatory to the ICC, a cargo van and a private jet would solve that. Wouldn't that just result in the US invading the Netherlands to rescue them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... > This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the President to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of The Hague, where the ICC is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody
emodendroket 3y ago
To be honest I'm not sure the megalomaniacs who pushed him aside are any better... in a way, better to deal with someone amoral who can be reasoned with than a true believer who thinks he's going to remake the Middle East in the image of America or whatever.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > better to deal with someone amoral who can be reasoned with By whom/who?
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    Someone who can convince him it's in his/his state's rational self interest to do something, I suppose.
- eynsham 3y ago
  Kissinger wasn't exactly unimpeachably rational; see e.g. G.J. Bass's The Blood Telegram.
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    I would appreciate the short version if you have the time to summarize it.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      I haven't read it but the summary here seems useful: https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Kissinger-Forgotten-Genocide-ebook/dp/B00C4BA4AE https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Kissinger-Forgotten-Ge... > Giving an astonishing inside view of how the White House really works in a crisis, The Blood Telegram is an unprecedented chronicle of a pivotal but little-known chapter of the Cold War. Gary J. Bass shows how Nixon and Kissinger supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship as it brutally quashed the results of a historic free election. The Pakistani army launched a crackdown on what was then East Pakistan (today an independent Bangladesh), killing hundreds of thousands of people and sending ten million refugees fleeing to India—one of the worst humanitarian crises of the twentieth century. > Nixon and Kissinger, unswayed by detailed warnings of genocide from American diplomats witnessing the bloodshed, stood behind Pakistan’s military rulers. Driven not just by Cold War realpolitik but by a bitter personal dislike of India and its leader Indira Gandhi, Nixon and Kissinger actively helped the Pakistani government even as it careened toward a devastating war against India. They silenced American officials who dared to speak up, secretly encouraged China to mass troops on the Indian border, and illegally supplied weapons to the Pakistani military—an overlooked scandal that presages Watergate.
zeteo 3y ago
When you find Kissinger deplorable you basically deplore his honesty. There are plenty of people with that level of power who have done as bad, or worse, but covered it up with silence or PR spin. Don't shoot the messenger.

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." -- H. Kissinger. It's sad this deplorable human being was given the Nobel Peace Prize.

DirectorKrennic 3y ago

The quote is apocryphal. There is no evidence he said that. And if he did, it was in jest.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
Plenty of evidence he did it, however.
runarberg 3y ago
Kissinger him self claims to have said it. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html#efmCS3CUB https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html#ef...
- monetus 3y ago
  502 error
  - harry8 3y ago
    host wikileaks.org wikileaks.org has address 80.81.248.21 wikileaks.org has address 51.159.197.136 wikileaks.org mail is handled by 10 reykjavik.spp.is. For comparison in case your DNS provider is doing something that you might not care for.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
    Works for me, here's the relevant segment: Esenbel: The Europeans should find ways to meet quick needs; for example, the Air Force needs spare parts. For other items that they can't find in the stocks, maybe you could make a deal with the Dutch or others to send it here. Macomber: That is illegal. Kissinger: Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I'm afraid to say things like that.
  - isleyaardvark 3y ago
    If it counts for anything, at least a journalist saw the relevant quote in the same link: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/about-that-kissinger-quote-neil-gorsuch-likes/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/about-that-kissing... I got a 502 in Firefox but it worked in Safari.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” ― Henry Kissinger
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
avgcorrection 3y ago
… and if it wasn’t in jest: “sticks and stones”.
hotpotamus 3y ago
I think you're supposed to wait until after someone proves that they said it to claim that it was a joke. I'd add that Kissinger had a decent sense of humor that he did not mind using glibly.
RIMR 3y ago
I don't think "He didn't say that, but if he did he didn't mean it" is a great argument, especially since there is proof that he did say it in the documents linked to these articles... It's also clear that that he did tons of illegal/unconstitutional things in his career, so it's pretty clear that he did say it and meant it, because it was an accurate portrayal of his behavior.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
  The Narcissist's Prayer comes to mind. "That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it."

moffkalast 3y ago

Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy, and we shall have... peace.

hayst4ck 3y ago
Words are indirect references to ideas. For some, particularly oppressors, peace references the idea of lack of physical violence. To other peace references the presence of justice. If someone thinks peace is lack of violence, how do you even communicate with them when you think peace is the presence of justice. To the former war violates peace, to the latter war is required for peace.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  > If someone thinks peace is lack of violence, how do you even communicate with them when you think peace is the presence of justice. how about just say "justice" or "presence of justice" instead of trying to redefine the word peace? Then, for example, the catch phrase "no justice, no peace" will make sense, it means "if we don't get justice, we will not be peaceful"
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    In the context of slavery, when the slave owner tells a slave what to do, and they don't fight back, I wouldn't call that peace. In the context of Taiwan, I wouldn't call China's coercion of Taiwan peace even though guns aren't firing. In the context of Ukraine, I wouldn't call the period after Russia's invasion of Ukraine to seize Crimea "peace" even though it was just "little green men" walking into Crimea. I wouldn't call the south china sea situation peaceful. So you're unwittingly making the point I'm making. I am not redefining any words, the reference in my head points to a different idea altogether. To me, you are redefining peace in the same way to you I am redefining peace. Both of us came into this conversation with the word peace being an indirect reference to a different idea. For me it's an indirect reference to the idea of justice. For you it's an indirect reference to lack of violence. When I try to answer if a situation is peaceful, I try to estimate the injustice. When you try to determine if a situation is peaceful, you look for the amount of physical violence. That means to me oppression/coercion is violence, but you might be the type of person to justify oppression because to fight oppression means to violate "peace." The idea of what word references what idea is a social process. So if you want to communicate or achieve understanding, you have to understand what the ideas represented by various words are. That's why so many philosophical conversations start with "well how do you define ____?" "how would we test that definition?". > "if we don't get justice, we will not be peaceful" So it leads us to different understandings, because the way I read it, they feel attacked and are saying if there is not justice we will defend ourselves. "no justice, no peace" -> "if there is not justice, there cannot be peace" -> "we will fight for justice". Your phrasing emphasizes the lack of peacefulness. My phrasing emphasizes the lack of justice. Why is it a "catch phrase" to you, but a "battle cry" to me? What do those words betray about the ideas that exist in our heads. What happens if two people in geographically distinct locations learn different definitions for words. What happens if people in Florida learn that the definition of "woke" is "a crazy liberal idea" while the people in California learn that the definition of woke is "understanding systemic racism." The word "woke" literally points to a different idea based on the social context you grew up in. The idea of peace is different if the social context that taught you vocabulary is one of being the oppressor rather than one of being oppressed. To the oppressor, peace is violated when someone doesn't want to be oppressed anymore. To the oppressed, peace is violated when someone used the threat of force in a bid to control them.

1letterunixname 3y ago

It's still not too late to bring the blood-money profiteering war criminals Kissinger and Cheney before The Hague. While the US isn't a signatory to the ICC, a cargo van and a private jet would solve that. They should die in custody and disgrace while Snowden and Assange should be free.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> It's still not too late to bring the blood-money profiteering war criminals Kissinger and Cheney before The Hague. While the US isn't a signatory to the ICC, a cargo van and a private jet would solve that. There's also the substantial problem that the war crimes (and crimes of aggression) that each is most clearly responsible for are not within ICC jurisdiction for geographical and/or temporal reasons. (Becauae the UK is and was at the time a Rome Statute party, the ICC did have investigate British potential violations in Iraq.)
- andyjohnson0 3y ago
  > Becauae the UK is and was at the time a Rome Statute party, the ICC did have investigate British potential violations in Iraq. Some of those possible violations were no doubt awful, but as usual the national leadership layer of the winning sides was untouched. I still have hopes that Tony Blair will one day face the punishment he deserves.
  - poisonarena 3y ago
    relevent song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUtikPtdT-s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUtikPtdT-s
science4sail 3y ago
> While the US isn't a signatory to the ICC, a cargo van and a private jet would solve that. Wouldn't that just result in the US invading the Netherlands to rescue them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... > This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the President to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of The Hague, where the ICC is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody

emodendroket 3y ago

To be honest I'm not sure the megalomaniacs who pushed him aside are any better... in a way, better to deal with someone amoral who can be reasoned with than a true believer who thinks he's going to remake the Middle East in the image of America or whatever.

avgcorrection 3y ago
> better to deal with someone amoral who can be reasoned with By whom/who?
- emodendroket 3y ago
  Someone who can convince him it's in his/his state's rational self interest to do something, I suppose.
eynsham 3y ago
Kissinger wasn't exactly unimpeachably rational; see e.g. G.J. Bass's The Blood Telegram.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  I would appreciate the short version if you have the time to summarize it.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    I haven't read it but the summary here seems useful: https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Kissinger-Forgotten-Genocide-ebook/dp/B00C4BA4AE https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Kissinger-Forgotten-Ge... > Giving an astonishing inside view of how the White House really works in a crisis, The Blood Telegram is an unprecedented chronicle of a pivotal but little-known chapter of the Cold War. Gary J. Bass shows how Nixon and Kissinger supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship as it brutally quashed the results of a historic free election. The Pakistani army launched a crackdown on what was then East Pakistan (today an independent Bangladesh), killing hundreds of thousands of people and sending ten million refugees fleeing to India—one of the worst humanitarian crises of the twentieth century. > Nixon and Kissinger, unswayed by detailed warnings of genocide from American diplomats witnessing the bloodshed, stood behind Pakistan’s military rulers. Driven not just by Cold War realpolitik but by a bitter personal dislike of India and its leader Indira Gandhi, Nixon and Kissinger actively helped the Pakistani government even as it careened toward a devastating war against India. They silenced American officials who dared to speak up, secretly encouraged China to mass troops on the Indian border, and illegally supplied weapons to the Pakistani military—an overlooked scandal that presages Watergate.

zeteo 3y ago

When you find Kissinger deplorable you basically deplore his honesty. There are plenty of people with that level of power who have done as bad, or worse, but covered it up with silence or PR spin. Don't shoot the messenger.