Under International Law Native Hawaiians are Victims of Genocide

Under international humanitarian law, which includes the law of occupation and the protection afforded civilians who are not engaged in war, denationalization is not only a war crime but is synonymous with the term genocide. Since the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom began during the Spanish-American War, the United States embarked on a deliberate campaign of forced denationalization in order to conceal the occupation and militarization of a neutral State. Denationalization, in its totality, is genocide.

Children_Salute_1907

Prior to World War I, violations of international law did not include war crimes, or, in other words, crimes where individuals, as separate and distinct from the State or country, could be prosecuted and where found guilty be punished, which included the death penalty. The Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties (Commission on Responsibility) of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 took up the matter of war crimes after World War I (1914-1918). The Commission identified 32 war crimes, one of which was “attempts to denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territory.”

Although the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, did not specify the term “denationalization” as a war crime, the Commission on Responsibility relied on the preamble of the 1899 Hague Convention, II, which states, “Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.” This preamble has been called the Martens clause, which was based on a declaration read by the Russian delegate, Professor von Martens, at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.

In October of 1943, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union established the United Nations War Crimes Commission (UNWCC). World War II had been waging since 1939, and atrocities committed by Germany, Italy and Japan drew the attention of the Allies to hold individuals responsible for the commission of war crimes. On December 2, 1943, the UNWCC adopted by resolution the list of war crimes that were drawn up by the Commission on Responsibility in 1919 with the addition of another war crime—indiscriminate mass arrests. The UNWCC was organized into three Committees: Committee I (facts and evidence), Committee II (enforcement), and Committee III (legal matters).

Committee III was asked to draft a report expanding on the war crime of “denationalization” and its criminalization under international law. Committee III did not rely solely on the Martens clause as the Commission on Responsibility did in 1919, but rather used it as an aid to interpret the articles of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV. It, therefore, concluded that “attempts to denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territory” violated Article 43, where the occupying State must respect the laws of the occupied State; Article 46, where family honor and rights and individual life must be respected; and Article 56, where the property of institutions dedicated to education is protected.

In 1944, Professor Raphael Lemkin first coined the term “genocide” in his publication Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (p. 79-95). The term is a combination of the Greek word genos (race or tribe) and the Latin word cide (killing). The 1919 Commission on Responsibility did list “murders and massacres; systematic terrorism” as war crimes, but Professor Lemkin’s definition of genocide was much broader and more encompassing.

Raphael LemkinAccording to Professor Lemkin, “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.”

“Genocide has two phases,” argued Professor Lemkin, “one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain, or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization of the area by the oppressor’s own nationals. Denationalization was the word used in the past to describe the destruction of a national pattern.” Professor Lemkin believed that denationalization was inadequate and should be replaced with genocide.

The term genocide, however, was not a war crime under international humanitarian law at the time, but it appears that Committee III was in agreement with Professor Lenkin that it should be a war crime. The problem that faced Committee III was how to categorize genocide as a war crime under the Hague Convention, IV. On September 27, 1945, Committee III argued that denationalization was not a single act of “depriving the inhabitants of the occupied territory of their national characteristics,” but rather a program that attempted to achieve this result through: “interference with the methods of education; compulsory education in the language of the occupant; … the ban on the using of the national language in schools, streets and public places; the ban on the national press and on the printing and distributing of books in the language of the occupied region; the removal of national symbols and names, both personal and geographical; [and] interference with religious services as far as they have a national peculiarity.”

Committee III also argued that denationalization included other activities such as: “compulsory or automatic granting of the citizenship of the occupying Power; imposing the duty to swearing the oath of allegiance to the occupant; the introduction of the administrative and judicial system of the occupying Power, the imposition of its financial, economic and labour administration, the occupation of administrative offices by nationals of the occupying Power; compulsion to join organizations and associations of the occupying Power; colonization of the occupied territory by nationals of the occupant, exploitation and pillage of economic resources, confiscation of economic enterprises, permeation of the economic life through the occupying State or individuals of the nationality of the occupant.”

Committee III also stated that these activities by the occupying State or its nationals would also “fall under other headings of the list of war crimes.”

There were apparent similarities between Professor Lemkin’s definition of genocide and the Committee III’s definition of denationalization. Professor Lemkin argued that genocide was more than just mass murder of a particular group of people, but “the specific losses of civilization in the form of the cultural contributions which can only be made by groups of people united through national, racial or cultural characteristics (Lemkin, Genocide as a Crime under International Law, 41 AJIL (1947) 145, at 147).” Similarly, Committee III argued that denationalization “kill[s] the soul of the nation,” and was “the counterpoint to the physical act of killing the body, which was ordinary murder (Preliminary Report of the Chairman of Committee III, C.148, 28 Sept. 1945, 6/34/PAG-3/1.1.0, at 2).”

In its October 4, 1945 report “Criminality of Attempts to Denationalise the Inhabitants of Occupied Territory,” Committee III renamed denationalization to be genocide.

On December 11, 1946, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution that declared genocide a crime under the existing international law and recommended member States to sign a convention. After two years of study, the General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on December 9, 1948. By the Convention, genocide has been recognized as a crime even when there is no war or the occupation of a State. Genocide became an international crime along with piracy, drug trafficking, arms trafficking, human trafficking, money laundering and smuggling of cultural artifacts. During war or the occupation of a State, genocide is synonymous with the war crime of denationalization.

In the Trial of Ulrich Greifelt and Others (October 10, 1947-March 10, 1948) at Nuremberg, the United States Military Tribunal asserted Committee III’s interpretation that genocide can be committed through the war crime of denationalization. In its decision, the Tribunal concluded that, “genocide…may be perpetuated through acts representing war crimes. Among these cases are those coming within the concept of forced denationalisation (p. 42).”

The Tribunal explained, “In the list of war crimes drawn up by the 1919 Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, there were included as constituting war crimes ‘attempts to denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territory.’ Attempts of this nature were recognized as a war crime in view of the German policy in territories annexed by Germany in 1914, such as in Alsace and Lorraine. At that time, as during the war of 1939-1945, inhabitants of an occupied territory were subjected to measures intended to deprive them of their national characteristics and to make the land and population affected a German province (p. 42).”

When the Hawaiian Kingdom was occupied during the Spanish-American War, the United States operated in complete disregard to the recognized principles of the law of occupation at the time. Instead of administering the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, being the occupied State, the United States imposed its own laws, administration, judiciary and economic life throughout the Hawaiian Islands in violation of Hawaiian independence and sovereignty. According to Professor Limken, this action taken by the United States would be considered as “the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor,” which is the second phase of genocide after the national pattern of the occupied State had been destroyed under the first phase.

In other words, the actions taken by the United States was precisely what the Axis Powers did in occupied territories during World War I and II, which, according to Committee III, included “interference with the methods of education; compulsory education in the language of the occupant; … the ban on the using of the national language in schools, streets and public places; the ban on the national press and on the printing and distributing of books in the language of the occupied region; the removal of national symbols and names, both personal and geographical; [and] interference with religious services as far as they have a national peculiarity. [As well as] compulsory or automatic granting of the citizenship of the occupying Power; imposing the duty to swearing the oath of allegiance to the occupant; the introduction of the administrative and judicial system of the occupying Power, the imposition of its financial, economic and labour administration, the occupation of administrative offices by nationals of the occupying Power; compulsion to join organizations and associations of the occupying Power; colonization of the occupied territory by nationals of the occupant, exploitation and pillage of economic resources, confiscation of economic enterprises, permeation of the economic life through the occupying State or individuals of the nationality of the occupant.”

Under Hawaiian law, native (aboriginal ) Hawaiians had universal health care at no charge through the Queen’s Hospital, which received funding from the Hawaiian Kingdom legislature. Early into the occupation, however, American authorities stopped the funding in 1904, because they asserted that the collection of taxes used to benefit a particular ethnic group violated American law. In a legal opinion by the Territorial Government’s Deputy Attorney General E.C. Peters on January 7, 1904, to the President of the Board of Health, Peters stated, “I am consequently of the opinion that the appropriation of the sum of $30,000.00 for the Queen’s Hospital is not within the legitimate scope of legislative authority.”

Since 1904, aboriginal Hawaiians had to pay for their healthcare from an institution that was established specifically for them at no charge. According to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Elements of Crimes, one of the elements of the international crime of “Genocide by deliberately inflicting condition of life calculated to bring about physical destruction,” is that the “conditions of life were calculated to bring about the physical destruction of that group, in whole or in part.” The ICC recognizes the term “conditions of life” includes, “but is not necessarily restricted to, deliberate deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, such as food or medical services, or systematic expulsion from homes.”

As a result of the “deliberate deprivation of…medical services,” many aboriginal Hawaiians could not afford medical care in their own country, which has led to the following dire health statistics today.

  • 13.4% of aboriginal Hawaiians who were surveyed in 2013 reported that they do not have any kind of health care coverage, which is the highest rate across all ethnic groups surveyed (Nguyen & Salvail, Hawaii Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, State of Hawai‘i Department of Health).
  • Aboriginal Hawaiians have the highest rate of diabetes in the Hawaiian Islands (Crabbe, Eshima, Fox, & Chan (2011), Native Hawaiian Health Fact Sheet 2011, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Demography Section, Research Division).
  • 5% of aboriginal Hawaiians are overweight, which is higher than any other ethnic group in the Hawaiian Islands (Nguyen & Salvail, 2013).
  • 7% of aboriginal Hawaiians have high blood pressure, being second only to Japanese at 39.7% (Nguyen & Salvail, 2013).
  • Aboriginal Hawaiians are more likely to have chronic diseases than non-aboriginal Hawaiians (Nguyen & Salvail, 2013).
  • 48% of the deaths of aboriginal Hawaiian children occur during the perinatal period (Crabbe et al., 2011).
  • 7% of aboriginal Hawaiian adults report being diagnosed with a depressive disorder (Nguyen & Salvail, 2013).

Professor Lemkin would view these statistics as connoting “the destruction of the biological structure” of aboriginal Hawaiians, which is the outcome of the second phase of genocide where the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor has been established. In addition to these statistics are added the deaths of aboriginal Hawaiians who died in the wars of the United States after forced conscription into the Armed Forces and their compulsion to swear allegiance. These wars included World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

US Recruiting Poster

101 thoughts on “Under International Law Native Hawaiians are Victims of Genocide

  1. Look, they Hague or worlds court is stalling because they waiting for the other countries or nations agree to discontinue and go with the worlds govt…. This is the agenda of the elite…

  2. Aloha, I very much appreciate the education shared! It would be nice to see some international intervention to put a halt to the war crimes and subtle genocide of a peaceful and friendly people living in a neutral state. It is very unfortunate that the occupying state possesses the military and economic might to intimidate other states making international intervention unlikely in our near future. Regardless, we Ku;e whenever and wherever we can! Mahalo, Paka .

  3. “Melting pot” achieves the same intended end as “gas chamber” which is the extinction of a nation’s unique culture. The goal of extinction was hidden in plain sight. It was the missionaries’ goal even if “jesus” was its painted on “happy” face.

  4. The facts revealed in this report only strengthen our position vis a vis the ongoing unlawful US occupation of Hawai’i. No nation, particularly those 100 or so nations with which the Kingdom of Hawai’i still maintains diplomatic treaties, can ignore these revelations any longer and conclusions.

    Even America’s closest allies MUST side with Hawai’i in the matter of the complete, immediate, unconditional deoccupation of Hawai’i as a condition of the restoration of the Kingdom of Hawai’i.

    We must now take our case directly to the UN General Assembly and the Court of International Arbitration in the Hague and make our case for the international support for the immediate, complete and unconditional deoccupation and restoration of the Kingdom of Hawai’i.

    ponokeali’i
    ali’i aloha aina

  5. I have a question of the blog. Since no international law was enacted regarding “denationalization” or “genocide” until 1945, are those war crimes then considered to be retroactive??? It would seem strange under any laws, whether local, national, or international, to pass a law and then charge anyone for breaking that particular law retroactively. Let’s say that stealing candy is not a law in my county. I stole candy in 2016. In 2017 the county enacts an ordinance that says what I did in 2016 is now illegal. Do I get charged with the violation retroactively? Just asking those who might know the answer. Mahalo.

    • You’re correct Ski. One cannot prosecute for under a law that didn’t exist at the time of commission. It’s the doctrine of intertemporal law, which says that “a juridical fact must be appreciated in the light of the law contemporary with it, and not of the law in the force at the time when the dispute in regard to it arises or falls to be settled.” (Island of Palmas case 1928). But what’s most problematic about this post is that in a claim of genocide the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that an individual accused of genocide had the intent to commit genocide. Proving intent is a very high burden.

      • Mahalo Mak for the legal interpretation. This puts a lot of things in a different light. As for Ponokeali’i , I am well versed with all the actions of the US involving the coup of our Queen. I well know that a Joint Resolution of Congress by the US can no more acquire Japan, nor Hawai’i. Comparing stealing candy was a mere simplification, not an analogy. The question still exists, when did genocide become a crime under international law? This is not a rhetorical question, but one, when answered, will affect the outcome of any cases brought to the World Court.
        Mahalo, Imua e Na Poki’i
        aloha
        Ski

        • Ski, The problem is, the law of genocide is very specific, so the claim that “denationalization is not only a war crime but is synonymous with the term genocide” is just not true. There is no element in the crime of genocide that talks about “denationalization” or any act like that, because genocide is an act of destroying, as in murdering, a group of people not extinguishing their national status. Here is a link that goes through the actual elements of genocide. See Pages 2-4 at https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/336923D8-A6AD-40EC-AD7B-45BF9DE73D56/0/ElementsOfCrimesEng.pdf

          In order to prosecute an INDIVIDUAL for genocide, it must be proved that (1) the act happened after the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment the Crime of Genocide by the United Nations in 1948; and (2) the individual had the INTENT to “destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” Again, proving intent is very difficult.

          • Mahalo MAK
            Your thorough research cuts through the fog of all the legal points that do need research.
            aloha
            ski

          • Ski and MAK, what determines the accepted legal definition of “genocide” as an acknowledged and recognized international legal definition is the opinion of recognized international organizations such as the International Court of Justice and the United Nations to which the nations of the world subscribe as member nations.

            You may both personally disagree with the legal definitions of these two well respected bodies as to what legally constitutes “genocide” in the course of international affairs but, unless you two are starting your own international organization and can convince the nations of the world to join it, your own definition of what constitutes “genocide” matters not at all to anyone but yourselves and perhaps a few other likewise confused, misguided and biased souls.

            ponokeali’i
            ali’i aloha aina

          • Ponokeali’i,
            Your most recent post seems to contain a personal attack on myself and MAK. I never make personal attacks on people I do not know, I would rather respect all opinions and would not belittle anyone by calling them misguided and biased unless I knew them personally. Even to those who believe in the exact opposite of what I believe I give respect for their opinion and then give them facts to see why we are on totally opposite sides. I don’t think you and I are on totally opposite sides. I will admit that I am frequently a bit confused, what with all the different “facts” out there, but biased and misguided I am not. The only bias I do have is to see the proper restoration of the true Hawaiian government without interference from the DOI et al. Too bad that conversations on a blog like this can descend into less than respectful political discourse and the sharing of mana’o and end up with name calling. That path does not show respect or aloha.

          • I want to mention that the link I provided above, which includes the elements of the crime of genocide, is from the International Criminal Court website. The International Criminal Court prosecutes individuals for the crime of genocide. The United Nations is not a court, and the International Court of Justice does not prosecute individuals and is not a criminal court.

      • I believe the big picture will inevitably show the true colors of the United States and cause other nation states to rethink their interactions and future involvement with the U.S.

        In the case below, France suffers for an American decision. Full them once shame on them, full them twice they deserve it! There is a good chance that France as well as other countries will see what happened to the Hawaiian Kingdom and will go beyond the facade the U.S. has created.

        https://www.rt.com/news/342244-france-wrong-syria-ukraine-sanctions/

    • If I may, Ski, please allow me to offer a comment to your question.

      The blog entry speaks to international law regarding genocide with respect to what actions can be considered to fit the legal test of genocide in the realm of international affairs.

      The question is whether or not the act of “denationalization”, as defined using the specific case of the actions undertaken by the US in order to illegally take control of the sovereign Kingdom of Hawai’i and unlawfully occupy the Kingdom, fits the internationally accepted definition of genocide.

      In particular these acts include:

      1) assisting in an illegal coup d’etat against a lawfully elected government by threat of military force.

      2) assisting in the forcible deposing of a lawfully elected head of state by threat of military force.

      3) conspiring with an illegal government to annex Hawai’i against the express wishes of a great majority of the subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

      4) failing legal annexation, conspiring to unilaterally proclaim annexation by means of a joint domestic congressional resolution rather than by means of a mutual legally ratified international treaty.

      5) unlawful occupation of a sovereign state.

      6) failure to apply and enforce the laws of the Kingdom of Hawai’i as required by the international laws of occupation.

      7) unlawfully imposing US citizenship on the subjects of the Kingdom of Hawai’i as prohibited by the international laws of occupation.

      8) unlawful taxation of the citizens of the occupied nation as prohibited by the international laws of occupation.

      9) unlawful military conscription of the citizens of the occupied nation as prohibited by the international laws of occupation.

      10) allowing the citizens of the occupier nation to freely settle in the occupied nation in violation of the immigration laws of the occupied nation.

      11) deliberate suppression of the traditional and customary social, cultural, moral, political and spiritual practices of the occupied nation.

      12) illegal physic seizure of territory which defines the traditional land base of the occupied nation.

      13) denial of the inherent national sovereignty of the occupied nation and denial of the inherent liberty and justice that is the right of the citizens of the occupied nation.

      14) military occupation of the occupied nation as prohibited by the international laws of occupation.

      All of these things and more constitute a deliberate attempt by the US to “denationalize” Hawai’i and its disenfranchise its citizens of their nationality and so constitute acts of willful and deliberate genocide, as well as international war crimes and acts of war, against the Kingdom of Hawai’i and its subjects.

      Since acts of genocide have no statute of limitations under international law the charge of genocide against the Kingdom of Hawai’i and its subjects by the US is a proper legal procedure since “denationalization” as described with regard to the actions of the US vis a vis Hawai’i had the end result of overthrowing a lawfully elected government, denying a nation its inherent sovereignty and independence and disenfranchising the subjects of the Kingdom of Hawai’i of their freedom, nationality and citizenship.

      The example that you gave as an analogy, “stealing candy”, is completely irrelevant and not applicable in this case because “stealing candy” is a very minor civil misdemeanor while “stealing a nation” is a major international crime of the highest order, a war crime, an act of war and an act of genocide. Your example is like comparing jaywalking to the holocaust. The two are in no way comparable.

      ponokeali’i
      ali’i aloha aina

      • Mahalo Ponokeali’i, May I also add DHHL, which is a branch of the US Depth. of Interior, and its blood quantum rules which requires 50% Hawaiian blood to qualify for Hawaiian Homestead land leasehold. Isn’t this another on going form of genocide?…LLHK

        • Add to that the disproportionate number of kanaka maoli ko Hawaii incarcerated.

          http://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/HI.html

          Also add to that the fraudulent statehood act, akaka bill, act 195, Kana’iolowalu(translation: the conquering of the many), Na’i Aupuni(translation: to conquer the Kingdom), and you begin to see we were never conquered as MAK(Maija) likes to believe to justify her support and involvement in seeking Fed Wreck to finalize the conquest of Hawaii. The conquest is ongoing. The genocide ongoing.

          Here is an excerpt from Ben Kiernan’s essay “Defining and Refining the Crime of Genocide”:

          Proving Intent

          Getting at the mental state of a perpetrator may be impossible outside a confession. By not requiring a motive, the Convention lightens the burden of proof. Tribunals trying crimes of genocide have determined that intent can be inferred from patterns of action. The ICTY Appeals Chamber ruled that a number of different facts can serve as evidence of the intent to destroy the group, including:

          – The number of victims selected only on account of their membership in the targeted group,
          – The general context,
          – The commission of other culpable acts systematically directed toward the targeted group,
          – The scale of the atrocities,
          – The repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts.

          All of these things, said the court, “would lead one to the conclusion that an intent to destroy the group, at least in part, was present.”

          https://clg.portalxm.com/library/keytext.cfm?keytext_id=184

  6. As late as 2007, and which prompted my personal opinion of genocide against the kanaka maoli in Hawaii (or at least those not politically connected to the state) is when, at over a fatal level of toxins, the state-controlled (and federally V.A.controlled) medical system told my friend that he was “lucky to die in his sleep from kidney failure because some people have violent deaths” refusing him dialysis access (a fistula was ultimately placed at a point where his toxins exceeded fatal limits, but could not be used during a three month healing time – and again when he was denied emergency dialysis – instead being told that he could receive it as an outpatient – which, if he had used his fistula, would have killed him.)

    Leaving EVERYTHING familiar, his home, family, country – and me, an American citizen living in Hawaii, leaving my business, my family, etc., we left knowing that if he stayed, he would certainly die – as it was his toxins (within weeks of the denials above) were twice the fatal limit and he was hospitalized for seven weeks in California – with emergency dialysis via his neck being performed on day one of our flee from Hawaii.

    Yes, there is genocide in Hawaii against the Hawaiian Kingdom subjects (I am not referring to Native Hawaiian Indians – who tend to be well cared for.)

    As for “theories” of whether the law predates annexation, blah blah, blah…when the rubber meets the road, these are of little significance (except to bolster an argument for a Native Hawaiian Native American Indian Tribe.) My suggestion to MAK is to keep your history of the tribe separate from that of the Kingdom – they are two completely separate issues and the Indian’s history started with Act 195 (or maybe Akaka before him.) Stay in your country, which is being “created” as we speak – and quit bastardizing the H.K. – as your mentor has admitted – the two are independent of each other.

    As a reminder…there was a time when slavery was “legal.” To follow the newly slated “retroactive” theory to either affirm a fraud or discredit this article, would be to believe that since slavery was legal prior to the “law” making it illegal, then those who owned slaves at the time of the law were exempt from prosecution and their slaves remained legal servants. ….or prosecutions for prior war crimes would be non-existent for all events prior to the enactment of the war crimes.

  7. While I have no formal education or knowledge of international law, either historical or current, it seems to me the fact of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s declaration of itself as an international NEUTRAL nation state carried the responsibility of refusing to act in concert with war mongering nations, i.e. the USA, as they heaped destruction on other nation states… The USA clearly accepted our Kingdom’s NEUTRAL status as it signed it’s agreement with that status in it’s earliest treaties with our Kingdom prior to 1893… No matter what else follows, the USA defied it’s own law, as well as international law, and every behavior of the USA since 1893 on Kingdom soil continues to be ILLEGAL…

  8. aloha ski and MAK,

    ski, in response to your question “when did genocide become a crime under international law?”, “genocide” has ALWAYS been a crime against humanity ever since humankind evolved, but the first instance of its formal legal use as a criminal charge in modern western legal proceedings occurred during the Nuremberg trials following the end of World War II.

    Then, in 1948, “the United Nations General Assembly voted unanimously to create the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Recognizing that “at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity” and that international cooperation was needed “to liberate mankind from this odious scourge,” the Convention criminalized certain acts committed with the intent to destroy ethnic, national, racial, or religious groups.

    However I believe that both you and MAK are asking the wrong question because your argument is predicated upon the notion that the government of the Kingdom of Hawai’i, represented by its subjects and citizens, are seeking criminal prosecution for certain war crimes, including genocide, committed against the subjects and citizens of the Kingdom of Hawai’i. This is not at all the case.

    For one thing all of the “bad actors” in the “committee of safety”, the McKinley administration and the US military that had their hands in the conspiracy which initiated and resulted in the illegal coup d’etat, the attempted annexation, the ongoing unlawful US occupation of Hawai’i and the multiple violations of the international laws of occupation, have long since died (and, its reasonable to assume, gone to Hell).

    The goal of aloha aina (Hawaiian patriots actively involved in the movement to deoccupy and restore Hawai’i) is to first bring about the peaceful, immediate, complete, permanent and unconditional US deoccupation of Hawai’i thereby clearing the way for the reinstatement of the Kingdom of Hawai’i government, the Hawaiian Monarchy, to resume its role as the ONLY lawful government with the authority to govern Hawai’i and for the continued recognition of the Kingdom of Hawai’i as a sovereign nation by all of the nations of the world.

    In order for us to effect the first of our goals, the deoccupation of Hawai’i, the subjects and citizens of the Kingdom and Nation of Hawai’i, acting on behalf of their government and nation, is seeking the legal opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), otherwise known as the World Court in The Hague, to make a legal determination that the US has committed certain war crimes, including but not limited to “genocide” as defined by the ICJ, so that we may seek remedy for the commission of these war crimes by the US.

    We have every confidence that the ICJ will find in favor of Hawai’i since it has already made the formal legal determination that the Kingdom of Hawai’i still exists and that the nation of Hawai’i is being unlawfully occupied by the US.

    The most effective modern day remedy for international disputes has evolved beyond war and criminal prosecution to the point that international disputes can now be best remedied by means of the coordinated imposition of sanctions upon the nation, government or political leaders responsible for the war crimes in question. The most successful outcomes of recent international disputes include the sanctions imposed upon Russian leaders for the invasion, occupation and attempted annexation of Eastern Ukraine, sanctions imposed on the Assad regime for acts of genocide against the people of Syria and sanctions imposed upon the governments of Iran and North Korea for their attempts to develop nuclear weapons programs.

    All of these international sanctioning efforts, usually carried out by an international coalition of effected and concerned nations, have succeeded in achieving their goals.

    We aloha aina see the imposition of harsh sanctions against the US government by an international coalition consisting of the more than 100 nations with which the Kingdom of Hawai’i maintains active diplomatic treaties as our best opportunity for achieving the immediate, complete, permanent and unconditional US deoccupation of Hawai’i so that we can then reinstate our lawful Kingdom of Hawai’i government and be once more recognized as a peaceful, neutral, sovereign and independent nation state. mahalo.

    ponokeali’i
    ali’i aloha aina

    • Mahalo Ponokeali’i,
      I am all for an aloha ‘aina coalition, the true patriots of our ‘aina (hopefully many other Hawaiians will eventually see that it could be a huge political force) and am in agreement with you to see the Kingdom government put back in charge. With that being said, the ICJ will have to make a ruling in Hawai’i’s favor and then the challenge of getting those nations with which the Kingdom of Hawai’i had treaties to impose sanctions on the US will begin. We know the truth, the rest of the world has not paid attention to the truth since 1893. If we holomua as one, we can do this. It is now that the Hawaiian people need to rally under one banner, not the many banners that are currently out there claiming to represent all Hawaiians. The recent “convention” by Na’i Aupuni made it very plain that we Hawaiians are presently far too splintered to be effective. Where is that one banner to rally around? Where is that one charismatic Hawaiian leader that all will respect and follow? I know that we can come together, but we need a leader who all look up to and trust. I have not seen that leader lately, and if anyone thinks that OHA is up to the task, they are sorely mistaken as they have already signaled their intent to move towards Fed Wreck. They know that Fed Wreck will result in us signing away our right to seek restoration of the Kingdom government. They also know that pursuing Fed Wreck will result in what would essentially be a pass to the US for their illegal actions and that we, as a people, would always be under the thumb of the occupier. All I can say is auwe! Again, mahalo .
      Ski

      • mahalo for your mana’o Ski,

        I truly believe that the ICJ will issue a favorable legal opinion that will confirm that the US has committed and participated in multiple acts of genocide against the subjects and citizens of Hawai’i. The sheer volume of evidence to support such claims is well documented and unimpeachable especially since much of that evidence comes directly from declassified documents from the US National Archives.

        To your point about the rest of the world’s opinion of Hawai’i’s status, I believe its not that they haven’t paid attention so much as the fact that the US government has engaged in a calculated propaganda program over the past more than 120 years aimed at indoctrinating the people and nations of the world wit the false narrative that the US legally annexed Hawai’i, that the kingdom of Hawai’i is a US state and that Hawaiian subjects are US citizens.

        As to your other points, no one, other transom of the delegates themselves, was fooled by the Na’i Aupuni Aha. It was widely discredited and decried by aloha aina who educated our people to the fraud and scam that the Na’i Aupuni Aha and the concept of US federal recognition represent.

        As to the “one banner to rally around” the ku kia’i mauna movement showed the US, the illegal puppet state, the band of Hawaiian traitors and collaborators and the entire that Hawaiians CAN rally and stand united around a single cause,

        Also, I personally bridle at the idea of “one charismatic Hawaiian leader that all will respect and follow”. history has proven time after time that even the most idealistic and altruistic charismatic leaders too often can become despotic tyrants,

        the ali’i tradition of leadership teaches us to lead with benevolence and humility. ali’i are trained to uphold our kuleana to malama aina and maka’ainana unlike western leaders that lead for personal wealth, power and glory.

        paiea is a prime example of training in the ali’i tradition. he was a brilliant koa ali’i who fulfilled the kuleana he was given to cite the kingdom under one rule. when he accomplished this task he chose to reign but not rule. he went into a self imposed semi retirement because he knew that his strength was a s a warrior, military leader and strategist and not a head of state. for that position he chose ka’ahumanu who ruled the kingdom as kuhina nui to paiea and liholiho and regent and china nui to kauikeaouli.

        i believe that the success of the ku kia’i mauna movement has shown us that aloha aina can come together to fulfill specific purpose without the need for one charismatic Hawaiian and that once we’ve succeeded in deoccupying and restoring Hawai’i the crown will seek and find the monarch that is most fit to rule the Kingdom.

        all who seek the crown by proclaiming their right to rule are false monarchs that are more concerned with their own greed, quest for power, search for glory and selfish self importance than with the kuleana to malama the ko pae aina ame lahui o Hawai’i.

        ponokeali’i
        ali’i aloha aina

  9. Thanks for this. I will post on the Peace Journalism website where I am the editor, TRANSCEND Media Service, founded by Prof. Johan Galtung.

    I lived in Hawaii for 18 years, the University of Hawaii is my Alma Mater. I am living in Europe right now. My friend Jon Olsen gave me the heads up and I’ll keep track from now on.

    Please access my website and watch the Music Video of the Week: Hawai’i Aloha | Song Across Hawai’i. Production of Playing for Change. I did cry when I watched the BEAUTIFUL video.

    ALOHA NUI LOA! I love you! I love Hawaii.
    Hawaii for the Hawaiians!!!!!!

    • Blessings over new lyrics to “God Bless America”
      Any more suggestions?
      “God Bless Hawai’i Now”
      Land that we Love,
      Please release her from your seizure,
      So we can get on with Aloha…Mahalo♡♡
      From the mountains, to the prairies, to the ocean, white with foam.
      God Bless Hawai’i now,
      Our Home Sweet Home…

  10. From above:

    According to Professor Lemkin, “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.”

    Britain finds itself at a crossroad as to whether or not it should remain with the European union or not. While no one is twisting their arm either way, it’s interesting to see some reasons why they would even think of leaving the union. One concern is the amount of control they’ll need to sacrifice in order to receive the benefits of the union. Full conversion to the euro has been a challenge for Britain.

    Again, no one is forcing Britain to remain or to leave the union, but to remain. Britain must voluntarily give control to the union.

    According to Proffessor Lemkin “genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation” but what happens to a nation that voluntarily sacrifices control over its destiny for the greater good even though the greater good is not so good?
    As one news reported, do we really want to be part of a United States of Europe?
    Other concerns, similar to the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and what we hear about the Hawaiian Kingdom independence, how can we make it on our own? Who will protect us from China and Russia? Who will we trade with? And on, and on, and on with the final outcome being involuntary servitude and tax without represention. Uncle Sam is not my uncle!

    On 24, June 2016, we shall see whether or not Pinocchio continues to live or if the Britts say enough already!

    If Britain do leave the European union it will have an effect on the TTIP. Just saying!

      • Interesting things happening at the international level. As I posted before, occupiers end occupations when nation(s) which have an equal or greater military power and interest comes to the aid of the occupied and the financial burden to fund the occupation is not feasible. Britain’s exit from the EU is causing global stocks, bonds and futures to plunge a $2.1 Trillion loss. July, 1, 2016 Puerto Rico’s debt payment comes due and they will probably default on a $72 Billion debt. This will add to the accelerated defaults of Venezuela, Italy, Greece etc…. not to mention other nations wanting to exit the EU. The U.S. is also facing a devastating economic crisis that will probably happen right before the U.S. Presidential elections just like the other two U.S.financial collapses the most recent in 2008.
        It appears who ever has prepared to survive the global crisis with the stronger reserve currency, military and allies will become the new hegemon in the international arena.
        According to a statement issued today by the Russian Foreign Ministry (thanks to the OUP International Law Blog for flagging it), during the upcoming June 25, 2016 state visit of the Russian president to China, the “foreign ministers of both countries are planning to sign a declaration on increasing the role of international law.” It will (according to Tass’ report) set out a common approach by both countries to a number of contemporary international problems. The declaration is aimed at stressing the significance attached by Russia and China to the most important principles and norms of international law amid increasing instability in many regions of the world. In our view, it is important that it set forth the understanding shared by the two permanent members of the UN Security Council with regard to such topical components of international law as the principles of the sovereign equality of states, the non-use and the non-interference into internal affairs and the peaceful resolution of disputes.
        Sounds like sometime in the near future would be a good time for the U.N.H.R.C. to hear a complaint of prolonged occupation and genocide.

  11. Joe, are you suggesting we restore a gov’t under the unconstitutional 1887 bayonet constitution? Unconstitutional=’s illegal. Never gonna happen.

      • The reason it is called the bayonet constitution is that the insurgents threatened the King with death to him and his loved ones if he did not sign it. I wonder if a group threatened you to sign a document in the same manner that you would agree that it is legal? Furthermore, according to the constitution that was in place at that time the King could not amend the constitution. It would require a 2/3 vote by the legislature and the bayonet constitution was never ratified by the legislature. You are saying that if the President of the U.S. amended the constitution under duress without ratification that it would be perfectly legal. Come on get real. The Queen was moving to have that constitution reinstated and that’s why the insurgents agreed to go along with the plan by the U.S. ambassador to overthrow the gov’t. . Anything done unconstitutionally can be legally challenged at anytime. That is why laws and acts get repealed if it can’t win a legal challenge. It is a no brainer that the bayonet constitution never was ratified by the legislature and is unconstitutional and we are not bound to follow it when reinstating our gov’t. It cannot stand a legal challenge.

    • Well our nation was recognized with the 1887 ! What are the parameters that you see that makes it not lawful for citizen rights?

      • It does not mean that the Bayonet Constitution is legal just because King Kalakaua sworn to it. As what kekoa said, it needed to be ratified by the legislature and that did not happen. As I said, read Article 80 of the 1864 Constitution.

        • So let’s do this! Live on Olelo , let’s discuss why the 1864 is more lawful and why its unconstitutional to restore with the 1887¡ PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION! NO OPINIONS!

          • Me and kekoa have already told you why the Bayonet Constitution would be unlawful to restore with. And that is not our opinions, that is what we have studied.

            I suggest study Hawaii’s legal and political history from the very beginning. It will all make sense when you start from the beginning.

          • You folks said read the article 80! So what’s the difference with 105 article of 1852? And where’s the ratified document of 1864? Now you all question the queen!? And who gives you folks the right? Dr. Sai?

          • But we are in no authority to mend what has been done ESPECIALLY when the Kingdom of Hawaii has been recognized by the Family of Nations!

          • Here you go Joe, On November 30, 1863, His Majesty King Kamehameha IV passed away unexpectedly, and consequently, left the Kingdom without a publicly proclaimed successor. On the very same day, the Kuhina Nui (Premier) in Privy Council publicly proclaimed Lot Kapuaiwa the successor to the Throne, in accordance with Article 25 of the Constitution of 1852. He was thereafter called King Kamehameha V. Article 47, of the Constitution of 1852, provides that “…whenever the throne shall become vacant by reason of the King’s death the Kuhina Nui (Premier) shall perform all the duties incumbent on the King, and shall have and exercise all the powers, which by this Constitution are vested in the King.”

            King Kamehameha V – Lot Kapuaiwa When His Majesty King Kamehameha V ascended to the throne, he had refused to take the oath of office until the Constitution was altered. This refusal was constitutionally authorized by Article 94 of the 1852 Constitution which provided that “…[t]he King, after approving this Constitution, shall take the following oath…”

            This provision implied a choice to take or not take the oath, which His Majesty King Kamehameha V felt should be constitutionally altered. Another provision of the 1852 Constitution needing alteration was the sovereign prerogative provided in article 45 which stated that “…[a]ll important business of the Kingdom which the King chooses to transact in person, he may do, but not without the approbation of the Kuhina Nui (Premier). The King and Kuhina Nui (Premier) shall have a negative on each other’s public acts.”

            This sovereign prerogative allowed the Monarch the constitutional authority to alter or amend laws without Legislative approval. These anomalous provisions needed to be altered along with the instituting of voter qualifications for the House of Representatives. His Majesty King Kamehameha V, in Privy Council, resolved to look into the legal means of convening the first Constitutional Convention.

            On July 7, 1864, a Convention was called for by His Majesty King Kamehameha V in order to draft a new constitution. The Convention was not comprised of delegates elected by the people with the specific task of altering the constitution, but rather their elected officials serving in the House of Representatives, together with the House of Nobles and the King in Privy Council who would convene in special session. Between July 7 and August 8, 1864, each article in the proposed Constitution was read and discussed until they arrived at Article 62. Article 62 defined the qualification of voters for the House of Representatives. After days of debate over this article, the Convention arrived at an absolute deadlock. The House of Representatives was not able to agree on this article. As a result, His Majesty King Kamehameha V, in exercising his sovereign prerogative by virtue of Article 45 of the constitution, dissolved the convention and proclaimed a new constitution on August 20, 1864.

            In His Majesty King Kamehameha V’s speech at the opening of the Legislative Assembly of 1864, he explained his abovementioned action of dissolving the Convention and proclaiming a new constitution. He stated that the “…forty-fifth article (of the Constitution of 1852) reserved to the Sovereign the right to conduct personally, in cooperation with the Kuhina Nui (Premier), but without the intervention of a Ministry or the approval of the Legislature, such portions of the public business as he might choose to undertake…”

            This public speech before the Legislative Assembly occurred without contest, and therefore must be construed as a positive statement of the approbation of the Kuhina Nui (Premier) as required by Article 45 of the said Constitution of 1852. However, this sovereign prerogative was removed from the 1864 Constitution, thereby preventing any future Monarch of the right to alter the constitution without the approval of two-thirds of all members of the Legislative Assembly. All articles of the constitution previously agreed upon in convention remained, except for the voter requirements for the House of Representatives. The property qualifications instituted in Articles 61 and 62 were repealed by the Legislature in 1874.

            Contrary to recent historical scholars, the 1864 Constitution did not increase the authority of the Monarch, but rather limited the power of the Monarch formally held under the 1852 Constitution. Under what has been termed the Kamehameha Constitution (1864), the Monarch was now required to take the oath of office and the sovereign prerogative was removed. Also removed was the office of the Kuhina Nui (Premier), which was found to be overlapping with the duties of the Minister of Interior. The bi-cameral nature of the legislative body was also removed. Where once the legislature would formally sit in two distinct Houses (House of Nobles and the House of Representatives), it now was changed to a uni-cameral House where the “…[l]egislative power of the Three Estates of this Kingdom is vested in the King, and the Legislative Assembly; which Assembly shall consist of the Nobles appointed by the King, and of the Representatives of the People, sitting together.”

          • you mean the coup de estat constitutio!! How dare you folks go against our Queen! If she didn’t order the army to “stand down ” they would’ve wiped out our kupuna!! I know! I’m a Marine!

          • Joe, this appears at the top of the 1864 constitution before it gets into the Articles of said constitution. If you need more documentation I would suggest the archives and privy consul minutes as a starting point. The Blount report also uncovers the illegality of the Bayonet Constitution in his interview with Chief Justice Judd.

          • Joe, take it easy, we are not going against the Queen. As I pointed out in my previous post we understand that the Queen had no choice but to swear to the 1887 (illegal) Bayonet Constitution because Kamehameha V took out the provision which gave the new Monarch the choice not to swear to the constitution when taking office. She was about to start the process to reinstate the 1864 Constitution but was convinced to wait and as soon as she waited she was overthrown.

          • Joe, I don’t quite understand your last post “…They overthrew her because the 1893 was going to keep us sovereign! Do you mean if she was successful in amending the 1887 with a 1893 constitution it would have made us sovereign?

          • Sorry Joe, In one of my last post I wanted to show you what is written at the top of the 1864 constitution before it gets into the articles of the constitution but I forgot to put it in. It says “Promulgated by His Majesty Kamehameha V., by the Grace of God, King of the Hawaiian Islands, on the Twentieth Day of August, A.D. 1864, with amendments by the Legislative Assembly.

          • In the LAWS of NATIONS, the governing authority has all rights and privileges to authenticate all constitutional laws! You say the Kingdom of Hawaii can’t be restored by the 1887,? But by international law it can! This restoration cannot abide by kingdom law because it’s an international matte!! And it’s the only way it can be done!

          • Joe, before we get into your recent post, “In the LAWS of NATIONS, the governing authority has all rights and privileges to authenticate all constitutional laws! You say the Kingdom of Hawaii can’t be restored by the 1887,? But by international law it can! This restoration cannot abide by kingdom law because it’s an international matte!!” And it’s the only way it can be done! , you have to clarify your last post’…They overthrew her because the 1893 was going to keep us sovereign!…” In the LAWS of NATIONS, the governing authority has all rights and privileges to authenticate all constitutional laws! You say the Kingdom of Hawaii can’t be restored by the 1887,? But by international law it can! This restoration cannot abide by kingdom law because it’s an international matte!! And it’s the only way it can be done!
            Joe, I would have to disagree. The violation of the constitution is a domestic matter to be decided within the country’s legal system. That is why as you posted…the governing authority of that country has all the rights and privileges to authenticate all constitutional laws…. It is left up to that country’s authority and not the authority of an international body. The issue of constitutionality is not an international matter but a domestic matter left up to a country’s national laws to make a determination.

  12. @Joe:

    “In a meeting of the Privy Council that afternoon, Lili‘uokalani took the oath of office, where she swore “in the presence of Almighty God, to maintain the Constitution of the Kingdom whole and inviolate, and to govern in conformity therewith.” Chief Justice Albert F. Judd administered the oath and Lili‘uokalani was thereafter proclaimed Queen. The oath did not state that she maintain the 1887 Bayonet Constitution, but rather “the Constitution.” The Bayonet Constitution was never ratified by the Legislative Assembly, so therefore it was never a constitution to begin with. The 1864 Constitution remained the constitution of the country.” – The 1887 Bayonet Constitution: The Beginning of the Insurgency, Posted on August 25, 2014

    • Under what law ? Because the 1887 was in ruling for 6 years and nobody said or did a thing to impeach the document, until now!!! Those of no authority!!!!

      • Power to Amend the Constitution: The power to amend or change the Constitution rests with the Legislative Assembly and the Monarch. Article 80 provides “Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in the Legislative Assembly, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members thereof, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on its journal, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the next Legislature; which proposed amendment or amendments shall be published for three months previous to the next election of Representatives; and if in the next Legislature such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Assembly, and be approved by the King, such amendment or amendments shall become part of the Constitution of this country.”

        In 1887, under threat of assassination, King Kalakaua signed a new constitution for the country, which has come to be known as the “bayonet” constitution. This so-called constitution was in direct violation of Article 80, which made the 1864 Constitution along with the amendments still binding.

        You said that ” nobody said or did a thing to impeach the document”, however, immediately after the signing of the Bayonet Constitution, the native population of the Kingdom of Hawaii sought to restore Kingʻs power and authority. A committee of Hawaiians met with Kalakaua to discuss dismantling the constitution because the King signed it under duress. According to Thurston, Kalakaua even defended the constitution to protesting natives, Queen Liliuokalani affirms that he was threatened with violence should he attempt to undo the new constitution. She also lists several petitions from natives that pleaded for a new constitution. Out of 9,500 registered voters, 6,500 signed these petitions. Since the majority of the population supported a new constitution, Queen Liliuokalani proposed one in January 1893.

        Wouldn’t the 1887 constitution not be valid because King Kalakaua signed under duress? Is that not similar to the situation that Queen Liliʻuokalani was placed in when she signed the letter of abdication under duress? Signing under duress would render it to be null and void.

          • I never made the claim to be part of the Legislative Assembly, just providing facts and asking questions. However, as I stated before the Bayonet Constitution was never ratified by the Legislative Assembly, so therefore it was never a constitution to begin with.
            You are avoiding my question, wouldn’t the 1887 constitution not be valid because King Kalakaua signed under duress? Keep in mind that signing under duress would render it to be null and void.

          • Hawaiian Kingdom – Political History:
            His Majesty King Kamehameha V, in exercising his sovereign prerogative by virtue of Article 45 of the constitution, dissolved the convention and proclaimed a new constitution on August 20, 1864.
            In His Majesty King Kamehameha V’s speech at the opening of the Legislative Assembly of 1864, he explained his abovementioned action of dissolving the Convention and proclaiming a new constitution. He stated that the “…forty-fifth article (of the Constitution of 1852) reserved to the Sovereign the right to conduct personally, in cooperation with the Kuhina Nui (Premier), but without the intervention of a Ministry or the approval of the Legislature, such portions of the public business as he might choose to undertake…”
            This public speech before the Legislative Assembly occurred without contest, and therefore must be construed as a positive statement of the approbation of the Kuhina Nui (Premier) as required by Article 45 of the said Constitution of 1852. However, this sovereign prerogative was removed from the 1864 Constitution, thereby preventing any future Monarch of the right to alter the constitution without the approval of two-thirds of all members of the Legislative Assembly. All articles of the constitution previously agreed upon in convention remained, except for the voter requirements for the House of Representatives. The property qualifications instituted in Articles 61 and 62 were repealed by the Legislature in 1874.

            Once again Joe, you failed to answer my question. Wouldn’t the 1887 constitution not be valid because King Kalakaua signed under duress?

          • That does not refute any of the things I just said. And you did not answer my question, which only leads me to believe that you either cannot answer it or refuse to acknowledge that what I said is true.

            You are not backing up your position.
            Unless you are going to challenge and dispute the evidence provided, there really is nothing more for you to say.

          • Joe, I do not think you know what the definition of evidence and opinion are.

            Evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

            Opinion is defined as a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

            I did not provide opinions, I provided facts.

            If they are just opinions, than you should have no problem refuting them instead of saying “It’s only called there’s no proof of who held the knife or the gun!”
            You would have answered my question the first time I asked it.

          • Joe, I have come to the conclusion that you are both irrational and deluded.

            Fact: Kamehameha V used his sovereign prerogative to dissolve the Convention and proclaim a new constitution (1864 Constitution).

            Fact: Kalakaua signed the 1887 Bayonet Constitution under duress.

            Fact: Signing under duress would render any document to be null and void.

            Fact: The Bayonet Constitution was never ratified by the Legislative Assembly, so therefore it was never a constitution to begin with. The 1864 Constitution remained the constitution of the country.

            You made the claim that ” 6 years and nobody said or did a thing to impeach the document, until now!!!” – Which was no true because immediately after the signing of the Bayonet Constitution, the native population of the Kingdom of Hawaii sought to restore Kingʻs power and authority. A committee of Hawaiians met with Kalakaua to discuss dismantling the constitution because the King signed it under duress. According to Thurston, Kalakaua even defended the constitution to protesting natives, Queen Liliuokalani affirms that he was threatened with violence should he attempt to undo the new constitution. She also lists several petitions from natives that pleaded for a new constitution. Out of 9,500 registered voters, 6,500 signed these petitions. Since the majority of the population supported a new constitution, Queen Liliuokalani proposed one in January 1893.

            You said “I answer facts not opinions”, but when you said that no one did anything to “impeach the document” was not true and was your opinion.

            Who said we were trying to “change the governance of our kingdom”? No one, we were pointing out the fact that the 1887 Constitution is null and void because it was signed under duress and that it was never ratified by the Legislative Assembly. The 1864 Constitution remained the constitution of the country.

          • Who are the writers of the so-called “International Humanitarian Law”, when was it written, and to define the term Genocide and demonstrate how it applies to Hawai`i.

          • The Kingdom of Hawai`i was not part of the Spanish—American War (April 1989 – August 1898) Please provide a declaration of War that mentions Hawaii during the period

          • Provide any documentation and publication during the Kingdom of Hawaii, stating that the 1887 Constitution was unconstitutional

          • Provide any documentation and publication during the Kingdom of Hawaii, that propose amendments to the 1887 Constitution in 1890 was unconstitutional

          • Provide any documentation and publication during the Kingdom of Hawaii, the when Liliu`okalani sworn an oath to the 1887 Constitution as amended, she was incompetent and did not know the Laws ?

          • I deal with someone who will smother your theories and Dr. Sais! Which he will not respond

          • Joe, you posted “..I deal with someone who will smother your theories and Dr. Sais! Which he will not respond…”
            I’m not offended by your comments and I have the opportunity to respond if I choose. I don’t think it’s fair to diss Dr. Sai, especially as you said he will not respond. I’ll just let his work speak for him. I’m posting a link to Dr. Sai’s doctorial dissertation http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/pdf/Dissertation(Sai).pdf , which addresses the 1887 on pages 98 thru 112. This information along with supporting documentation was vetted and approved by a doctorial panel of highly qualified Phd’s in law and history. Dissertation Committee:
            Neal Milner, Chairperson Matthew Craven, John Wilson, Katharina Heyer, Aviam Soifer, Jonathan K. Osorio. You can google them for more info on their impressive qualifications.
            Good luck. Hope you get it this time around.

          • The invitation still stand!! Live on Olelo,, why the 1887 can’t used for restoration over the 1864! Documented facts only! No opinions!

          • Joe, I was expecting your response to be well documented and craftily articulate in supporting your position as you hold everyone else to that standard. You can imagine how all of us in blogersville are devastated to see this as your response “Kingdom-hawaii.org baby”…”The invitation still stand!! Live on Olelo,, why the 1887 can’t used for restoration over the 1864! Documented facts only! No opinions!”
            I have come to the conclusion that either you are a detractor trolling this blog or suffer from SGS (sovereignty group syndrome). What ever the case, I’m confident information posted by everyone supporting the 1864 was helpful to those following this tread. Aloha & all Pau.

          • Hey Joe, isn’t the 1887 constitution NOT valid because it was signed under duress, rendering it null and void?

        • Joe, would it not have been easier to compile everything into a single comment instead of spamming the comment section? It is evident that you are upset and clearly red herring. You asked me to provide you with a lot of evidence, but you have not provided me with anything other than your opinion. You have not even answered my question with a simple yes or no.

          1) Who are the writers of the so-called “International Humanitarian Law”, when was it written, and to define the term Genocide and demonstrate how it applies to Hawai`i.

          – International humanitarian law is rooted in the rules of ancient civilizations and religions – warfare has always been subject to certain principles and customs.
          Universal codification of international humanitarian law began in the nineteenth century. Since then, States have agreed to a series of practical rules, based on the bitter experience of modern warfare. These rules strike a careful some of their rules are similar, these two bodies of law have developed separately and are contained in different treaties. In particular, human rights law – unlike international humanitarian law – applies in peacetime, and many of its provisions may be suspended during an armed conflict.
          Under international humanitarian law, which includes the law of occupation and the protection afforded civilians who are not engaged in war, denationalization is not only a war crime but is synonymous with the term genocide. example: Americanization of Hawaiʻi.

          2) The Kingdom of Hawai`i was not part of the Spanish—American War (April 1989 – August 1898) Please provide a declaration of War that mentions Hawaii during the period

          – You made a claim that the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi was not part of the Spanish—American War. Where is your evidence to support that claim? And by the way, there are no declaration of war that mentions Hawaii during the time period you provide because the Spanish-American war never happened between “(April 1989 – August 1898)”. You gave a time period that went back a century.

          3) Provide any documentation and publication during the Kingdom of Hawaii, stating that the 1887 Constitution was unconstitutional

          – The constitution of 1864 no longer had the sovereign prerogative of Article 45, thus the Crown was limited to faithfully executing Hawaiian law as the country’s chief executive.
          Article 78 of the 1864 Constitution provided that all “laws now in force in this Kingdom, shall continue and remain in full effect, until altered or repealed by the Legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to this Constitution. All laws heretofore enacted, or that may hereafter be enacted, which are contrary to this Constitution, shall be null and void.”
          The Hawaiian constitutional law provided that any proposed change to the constitution must be submitted to the Legislative Assembly, and upon majority agreement, would be deferred to the next legislative session for action. Once the next legislature convened, and the proposed amendment or amendments were “agreed to by two-thirds of all members of the Legislative Assembly, and be approved by the King, such amendment or amendments shall become part of the Constitution of this country.”
          Once again, the 1887 constitution was signed under duress, so it was rendered null and void.

          4) Provide any documentation and publication during the Kingdom of Hawaii, that propose amendments to the 1887 Constitution in 1890 was unconstitutional

          – The 1887 constitution was null in void, not much needs to be said than that.

          5) Provide any documentation and publication during the Kingdom of Hawaii, the when Liliu`okalani sworn an oath to the 1887 Constitution as amended, she was incompetent and did not know the Laws ?

          – You asked “Provide any documentation and publication during the Kingdom of Hawaii”, you can refer to Dr. Keanu Saiʻs doctoral dissertation. After all, we are still within the Hawaiian Kingdom, but under an illegal occupation.

          Said it before, the oath did not state that she maintain the 1887 Bayonet Constitution, but rather “the Constitution.” And the Constitution was the 1864 Constitution.

          Also, I feel the need to point out that you are being a hypocrite Joe, first you said “How dare you folks go against our Queen!”, yet you are calling her incompetent and that she did not know the laws. I agree with what Kekoa said, “The promoters of the 1887 is the ones that overthrew her and continue to disrespect her and the country.”

          6) I deal with someone who will smother your theories and Dr. Sais! Which he will not respond

          – And who is that someone? What is that personʻs credentials? If what you say is true, than why has that person not said anything before? Is that person an expert?

          As for references, I actually did provide a few references for the facts. Where were your references?

          Here are a few more references for you.
          – Blount report
          – ICRC: What is International Humanitarian Law?
          – The 1864 Constitution
          – THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM: BEGINNING THE TRANSITION FROM OCCUPIED TO RESTORED STATE

          • Joe, you made no point other than you being irrational and deluded.

            I answered each of your comments and you still have yet to respond to my questions or provide any references.

            And back to what Kekoa had already said “She had to move cautiously to ensure she would have enough support to ratify any amendments to the constitution she made. She knew this would anger the traitors and cause a reaction from them which possibly could endanger her own life. The Queen did not promote or want the 1887, that’s why she was about to amend it. The reaction from the traitors for attempting this was to conspire with the U.S. to illegally overthrow her.”

            You are the one who is disrespecting the Queen by supporting the 1887 Constitution.

  13. I agree but our domestic matter is just that! Our Nation was also recognized under operations of and up to the 1887! We can disputes this matter after full restoration. The world need not intervene. And it has to go back to the EXACT! Usurped Kingdom of Hawaii of 1893!

    • Joe, there are maxims in law such as Jus ex injuria non oritur, A right cannot arise from a wrong and Forma non observata inferior adnullatio actus, When form is not observed a nullity of the act is inferred. The non compliance to form by the traitors in amending the 1864 constitution without ratification infers the act is a nullity. Null and void in law. Therefore, even though it had been in operation in the past it to benefit the traitors it can claim no rights over us today if we choose to nullify it. We can nullify it before restoration instead of pretending it somehow can claim a right to be in existence today.

        • Joseph, you posted “…See you choose to nullify it !!!! You have no rightful authority!!!! It must be made upon restoration of the kingdom first!!!!
          The Queen did not give you folks the authority to decide for a nation!!!!..”
          I think you have missed understood what I said when I posted “.. there are maxims in law such as Jus ex injuria non oritur, A right cannot arise from a wrong and Forma non observata inferior adnullatio actus, When form is not observed a nullity of the act is inferred. ”
          I or We are not the ones that are nullifying the 1887. The traitors nullified themselves. They did not follow the proper form in which to amend the constitution and have it ratified by the legislature. That makes it null and void without any rights, end of story. The 1887 is moot.

      • Nothing is being stated by facts to back up what you guys say! Also does the wrongful of the constitution also applies to Kamehameha the V for violation of the 1852?

        • Joe, I would suggest you take another read of my earlier post regarding Kamehameha V and his amending the 1852 constitution. He did nothing wrong. Everything he did was in compliance with the provisions of the 1852 constitution . What he did actually showed foresight. He saw how these provisions could have been abused or manipulated. If he did not close those loop holes the 1887 constitution would have been legal.
          Well I guess we are at an impasse and will just have to wait and see when the time comes for restoration. Be well.

        • Joe, maybe loophole is not the best word so I’ll just say provisions but if you are asking then you have not read my post or don’t understand. You keep saying Kamehameha V violated the 1852 but I showed you the provisions within the 1852 that shows you he did not. If those same provisions were not removed by him then the 1887 could have been a legal constitution since it would not have needed ratification by the legislature.
          Do you understand the whole reason for the traitors forcing the1887???????????? They were the minority in the legislature and could not gain the majority to push their agendas. The amendments they inserted into the 1887 allowed NON CITIZENS, EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN FOREIGNERS TO VOTE BUT NOT ASIANS. Show me any country in the WORLD that allows non citizens and foreigners to vote in their elections. With the 1887 they were able to illegally gain the majority. So you want NON CITIZENS AND FOREIGNERS voting in our elections??????? I would have to question your loyalty and motives for wanting the 1887 that is unconstitutional and racist for our constitution. Sorry, not on my watch.

          • you folks present no lawful doctrine or facts to rightfully nullify the acts of our quee,, nor would you all willing to debate this live on Olelo providing factual documantation to prove our Queens aka ” unconstitutional amendment ” ! Our Nation cannot be restored upon opinion!!

        • That’s the whole point of the 1887 Joe, they don’t have to be citizens to vote. The 1887 ALLOWED NON CITIZENS TO VOTE. Have you not comprehended anything. By promoting the 1887 YOU want to allow European and American NON CITIZENS to vote. YOU are also discriminating against the Asian citizens because it bars them from voting. It’s so obvious that is what YOU and ANYONE that promotes the 1887 wants. Because of the 1887 the traitors power increased and the Queen had to contend with the same traitors that threatened her brother. She had to move cautiously to ensure she would have enough support to ratify any amendments to the constitution she made. She knew this would anger the traitors and cause a reaction from them which possibly could endanger her own life. The Queen did not promote or want the 1887, that’s why she was about to amend it. The reaction from the traitors for attempting this was to conspire with the U.S. to illegally overthrow her. So don’t keep saying we are the ones that are disrespecting the Queen. The promoters of the 1887 is the ones that overthrew her and continue to disrespect her and the country.

Leave a Reply