Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1819 versus 1893
#41
QUEEN LILIUOKALANI'S LETTER OF ABDICATION ......true it is there for all to read......

This gracious Hawaiian queen was on trial for treason. She was under house arrest.

She also stated this
"I acted on my own free will, and wish the world to know that I have asked no immunity or favor for myself, nor plead my abdication as a petition for mercy. My actions were dictated by the sole aim of doing good to my beloved country, and of alleviating the positions and pains of those who unhappily and unwisely resorted to arms to regain an independence which they thought had been unjustly wrested from them."

and she said this in her trial:
" A minority of the foreign population made my action the pretext for overthrowing the monarchy, and aided by the United States navel forces and representative, established a new government.
I owed no allegiance to the Provisional Government so established, nor to any power or to any one save the will of my people and the welfare of my country.
The wishes of my people were not consulted as to this change of government, and only those who were in practical rebellion against the Government were allowed to vote upon the question whether the Monarchy should exist or not.
This selection was anticipated and prevented by the Provisional Government, who being possessed of military and police power of the kingdom, so cramped the electoral privileges that no free expression of their will was permitted to the people who were opposed to them.

All that uphold you in this unlawful proceeding may scorn and despise my word,

but the offense of breaking or setting aside for a specific purpose the laws of your own nation and disregarding all justice, may be to them and to you the source of an unhappy and much regretted legacy.

(The court retired and returned with the decision that the objectionable passages should be stricken out. Colonel Whiting read them and ordered that they be stricken fom the record.)
Reply
#42
Kaimana, would you describe Kamehameha's conquest as somehow more legitimate than the coup? The only difference I see is a lot more people died.

As to "illegal" coups or annexations, beyond treaties there really is no binding international law, just sovereign nations doing as they please. And even treaties are broken all the time.

Reply
#43
Random- Hawaii was not recognized as a sovereign state at the time of Kamehameha I.

Also the US has admitted to illegally backing the coup. Thus bringing in international law.

Now if your argument is might makes right I have no argument. But if you're going by law, international and US law, then Hawaii is occupied.

Ironyak- there were customary international laws dictating how to acquire sovereignty. Also the Constitution is there to limit the governments power. The powers of Congress are listed in Article I, Section 8, and Congress may not exercise any not power listed there.

Same with the President. His powers are explicitly stated.
Reply
#44
reni - she said this in her trial:
All that uphold you in this unlawful proceeding may scorn and despise my word, but the offense of breaking or setting aside for a specific purpose the laws of your own nation and disregarding all justice, may be to them and to you the source of an unhappy and much regretted legacy.


Hard to argue with that (although Dole, Thurston, Shipman, et al made out like bandits...)
Reply
#45
Ironyak... ah, you copied the most important of all for me, The Karma

"may be to them and to you the source of an unhappy and much regretted legacy."
Reply
#46
Kaimana - there were customary international laws dictating how to acquire sovereignty. Also the Constitution is there to limit the governments power. The powers of Congress are listed in Article I, Section 8, and Congress may not exercise any not power listed there.

Yeah, but 2/3rds of the voting US Senators and almost 3/4th of the US House of Representatives and then-President McKinley all had a different opinion in 1898 clearly. It's almost like if no one enforces the law then it really doesn't exist. Ironic, no?
Reply
#47
So by your logic the protectors aren't breaking the law. Lol.

But still that's not a treaty.
Reply
#48
Yeah, laws that aren't enforced aren't laws, they're wordy recommendations (good thing someone got arrested to show the state is "doing something")

And agreed, the Newlands Resolution was not a treaty (although that was noted then as well and still hasn't made a difference - some opinions matter more than others apparently).

Sincerely, given the US has shown the UN and ICC they GZF about their rulings, who is expected to step forward and take up this minority legal opinion from 125 years ago and fix everything?
Reply
#49
I'm following this discussion with a bit of interest. I'm curious which "customary international laws dictating how to acquire sovereignty" existed back in the 1890s.

Me ka ha`aha`a,
Mike
Me ka ha`aha`a,
Mike
Reply
#50
Not to answer for Kaimana, but if this all interests you, while giving testimony regarding Mauna Kea & TMT, Prof Chang offered a good revisiting many of the objections to Annexation at the time here:
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bi...0%20AM.pdf

And there are some interesting counter-points given here:
https://civilbeat-aws-dotorg.s3.amazonaw...l-v2-1.pdf

This discussion is in many ways just throwing summarizing talking points from these and a few other sources back and forth.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)