It makes one wonder where these researchers have been. The examples they use is old news that we knew about BEFORE the Wikileaks "scandal". American power was damaged by those in power in America. You're right! Wikileaks is a scapegoat of things we already knew and the U.S needs to blame someone else for their criminal behavior.
I like this the best:
On the law
“Julian Assange is not American, was not on US soil when he published the cables and did not steal the leaked documents. Any prosecution is likely to throw up constitutional issues, particularly the notion of extra-territorial application of American laws.”
Isn't this what we have been saying about the Newlands Resolution and Statehood? LMAO! Remember this and use it!
Tane
I like this the best:
On the law
“Julian Assange is not American, was not on US soil when he published the cables and did not steal the leaked documents. Any prosecution is likely to throw up constitutional issues, particularly the notion of extra-territorial application of American laws.”
Isn't this what we have been saying about the Newlands Resolution and Statehood? LMAO! Remember this and use it!
Tane
Nice to see that wikileaks continues to be a scapegoat for the failures of corrupt US policy. Why not also blame the Guardian, Der Spiegel and the NYTimes for corroborating and editing the cables before publication on Wikileaks... or better yet, corrupt US power abroad.
It was about time someone from the inside was a whistle-blower.
arnie
(PhysOrg.com) -- One of the first academics to study the impact of the exposure of US diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks argues that American power has been significantly damaged. Professor Inderjeet Parmar, from The University of Manchester, says the prevailing argument that WikiLeaks has caused little lasting harm to the US is inaccurate.
“Information brought to the world’s attention by WikiLeaks has wreaked havoc on the United States in many different ways,” he said.
“The cables continue to damage America’s standing and influence on the world and its relationship with allies including Britain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria and others.”
The damage, he said, will be acutely felt when the US State Department host UNESCO’s world press freedom day May 2011.
He added: “The success of WikiLeaks in leveraging major news outlets such as the Guardian and New York Times is a major disruption to the Government’s agenda.
“For politicians, media and opinion-management go hand in hand: policies must be sold to publics to be politically salient.
“These cables have severely impeded that ability; they have challenged the agenda-setters who are normally used to following their chosen policies and controlling how they are portrayed to a mass audience.”
On Iran
“We now know there are differences between the US and Israel over Iran’s perceived nuclear threat. The Iranians now know that Israel is concerned about this and political consequences are sure to follow. The Iranians also now know that Israel is extremely wary of military strikes on Iran’s nuclear plants.”
On Tunisia
“It’s clear that WikiLeaks cables added to Tunisian public’s sense that President Zainul Abedin Ben Ali was corrupt and out of touch with the people. The uprisings there were at least in part influenced by secret US embassy cables and could release a wave of change throughout the Arab world, most of them staunch US allies, including providing a more powerful impetus to extreme Islamist parties.”
On China
“The Chinese now know how much the US accepts that its economy - and employment - depends on them. Hu Jintao’s current visit to the US will no doubt feature deployment of such knowledge in trade negotiations. This is likely to become a key factor in the next US election and will heighten the self confidence of the Chinese, which some embassy cables described as ‘hubris’.”
On Pakistan
“The US public is better informed about Pakistan’s instability and support for terrorist acts against US forces. They also know it provides the Pakistan security services with billions of dollars of cash.”
On US prestige
“With alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning being held in solitary confinement without charge, the impact on US image is considerable, even provoking cyber attacks on US institutions, and a growing campaign for better treatment.”
On the law
“Julian Assange is not American, was not on US soil when he published the cables and did not steal the leaked documents. Any prosecution is likely to throw up constitutional issues, particularly the notion of extra-territorial application of American laws.”
On Obama and politics
“The WikiLeaks disclosures echo something of the post Vietnam post Watergate and post Pentagon papers atmosphere of the 1970s. That resulted in the election of Jimmy Carter with high hopes of restoring the US image – like Obama after the Bush years. But Carter’s failure led to rise of a new Right and the election of Ronald Reagan. WikiLeaks could very possibly lead to the rise of a more credible Republican challenger not from a moose hunting Alaskan but from a man on horseback – General David Petraeus.”
Provided by University of Manchester
"Researchers say WikiLeaks damaged American power." January 26th, 2011. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-wikileaks-american-power.html
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
It was about time someone from the inside was a whistle-blower.
arnie
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Karl Stonjek
Subject: [evol-psych] News: Researchers say WikiLeaks damaged American power
Researchers say WikiLeaks damaged American power
January 26th, 2011 in Other Sciences / Economics & Business “Information brought to the world’s attention by WikiLeaks has wreaked havoc on the United States in many different ways,” he said.
“The cables continue to damage America’s standing and influence on the world and its relationship with allies including Britain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria and others.”
The damage, he said, will be acutely felt when the US State Department host UNESCO’s world press freedom day May 2011.
He added: “The success of WikiLeaks in leveraging major news outlets such as the Guardian and New York Times is a major disruption to the Government’s agenda.
“For politicians, media and opinion-management go hand in hand: policies must be sold to publics to be politically salient.
“These cables have severely impeded that ability; they have challenged the agenda-setters who are normally used to following their chosen policies and controlling how they are portrayed to a mass audience.”
On Iran
“We now know there are differences between the US and Israel over Iran’s perceived nuclear threat. The Iranians now know that Israel is concerned about this and political consequences are sure to follow. The Iranians also now know that Israel is extremely wary of military strikes on Iran’s nuclear plants.”
On Tunisia
“It’s clear that WikiLeaks cables added to Tunisian public’s sense that President Zainul Abedin Ben Ali was corrupt and out of touch with the people. The uprisings there were at least in part influenced by secret US embassy cables and could release a wave of change throughout the Arab world, most of them staunch US allies, including providing a more powerful impetus to extreme Islamist parties.”
On China
“The Chinese now know how much the US accepts that its economy - and employment - depends on them. Hu Jintao’s current visit to the US will no doubt feature deployment of such knowledge in trade negotiations. This is likely to become a key factor in the next US election and will heighten the self confidence of the Chinese, which some embassy cables described as ‘hubris’.”
On Pakistan
“The US public is better informed about Pakistan’s instability and support for terrorist acts against US forces. They also know it provides the Pakistan security services with billions of dollars of cash.”
On US prestige
“With alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning being held in solitary confinement without charge, the impact on US image is considerable, even provoking cyber attacks on US institutions, and a growing campaign for better treatment.”
On the law
“Julian Assange is not American, was not on US soil when he published the cables and did not steal the leaked documents. Any prosecution is likely to throw up constitutional issues, particularly the notion of extra-territorial application of American laws.”
On Obama and politics
“The WikiLeaks disclosures echo something of the post Vietnam post Watergate and post Pentagon papers atmosphere of the 1970s. That resulted in the election of Jimmy Carter with high hopes of restoring the US image – like Obama after the Bush years. But Carter’s failure led to rise of a new Right and the election of Ronald Reagan. WikiLeaks could very possibly lead to the rise of a more credible Republican challenger not from a moose hunting Alaskan but from a man on horseback – General David Petraeus.”
Provided by University of Manchester
"Researchers say WikiLeaks damaged American power." January 26th, 2011. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-wikileaks-american-power.html
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
Comments
The Hawaiian "Leaks":
You have to respect this woman !! When I discovered these "leaks", I was awestruck by the character of this Queen !
Mr. Willis to Mr. Gresham.
[Confidential.]
No. 14.] Legation of the United States, Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, December 18, 1893.
Sir: Your cipher instructions of December 2 were received as trans¬lated at 3 p. m. Thursday, the 14th instant. An arrangement was immediately made for an interview with the Queen for Saturday, De¬cember 16 at 9 a. m.
Mr. J. O. Carter was invited to be present. Mr. Carter, as stated in my dispatch No. 3, of November 14, is a brother of the late Mr. H. A. P. Carter, who was the Hawaiian minister to the United States. He is the president and manager of the incorporated company of "C. Brewer & Co.," which does a large general mercantile and commission business, and is agent for a number of large sugar plantations. He is conceded by all factions to be a man of great intelligence and strict integrity. He is a native Hawaiian, but of American parentage.
At the appointed hour the Queen and Mr. Carter came, and the interview was, with their consent, reported stenographically by Mr. Mills, our consul-general.
I inclose the report, verified by the Queen and Mr. Carter. I also send a copy of a part of the interview with the Queen, reported in my dispatch No. 3, of November 14, which is also verified by the Queen, marked A.
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 1263
Mr. Mills' report includes all that was said. It will be observed that no restrictions were placed upon the Queen or upon Mr. Carter, the object being to secure a full and unreserved expression of views. This interview was held at the legation.
Very respectfully,
Albert S. Willis.
The Queen was informed that the President of the United States had important communications to make to her and she was asked whether she was willing to receive them alone and in confidence, she being assured that this was for her own interest and safety. She answered in the affirmative.
I then made known to her the President's sincere regret that, through the unauthor¬ized intervention of the United States, she had been obliged to surrender her sover¬eignty, and his hope that, with her consent and cooperation, the wrong done to her and to her people might be redressed. To this she bowed her acknowledgments.
I then said to her: "The President expects and "believes that when reinstated you will show forgiveness and magnanimity, that you will wish to he Queen of all the people, both native and foreign born, that you will make haste to secure their love and loyalty, and to establish peace, friendship, and good government." To this she made no reply. After waiting a moment I continued:
December 16, 1893.
Mr. Willis (addressing the Queen). I sent word yesterday asking you to come this morning and to bring Mr. Carter, whom you had mentioned in a previous interview as one of your friends. His was the first name given to me in the only interview we have had. My idea was to have some one present as your friend, who could hear what I wish to say to-day. (Addressing Mr. Carter, Mr. Willis said:)
Mr. Carter, before having any further conversation it is proper I should make known to you what occurred at the previous interview. On the 13th of November I sent word to the Queen asking if she would come here, as there would be less publicity than if I went to her house. She complied, came here with Mr. Robertson, and a conversation ensued the substance of which I have made known to the President. I will read what I have written as an official report to the President, as leading up to the present interview, and as I read [speaking to the Queen] if there is any portion of the interview as given that you think is incorrect do not hesitate to stop me and make such changes as you desire, although it has been already sub¬mitted.
[The report in question was at this point read to the Queen by Mr. Willis. It is appended hereto, marked A.]
Mr. willis. I wish to ask you now, and I ask you to deliberate well before answering, whether the views expressed at that time, as read to you now, have been in any respect modified since that conversation?
The Queen. They have not.
Mr. Willis. You still adhere to your judgment, as then expressed, that all of those persons should be punished according to the law under the constitution of 1887, which is that they should be punished with capital punishment and their property confiscated?
The Queen. I feel that if any change should be made that they must not be per¬mitted to remain in the country, and that their property should be confiscated, That is my view.
Mr. Carter. You do rescind so much of that interview as pronounced upon them the death penalty?
The Queen. I do in that respect.
Mr. Carter. You feel that their remaining in the country would be a constant source of trouble to you and your people?
The Queen. I do. I think I mentioned at the time that should they be permitted to remain, that as they have once committed treason and this being the second offense, that the next time would be dangerous for the community and the people. I think I said that in the other conversation.
Mr. Carter. In general terms, then, you feel that the continued living in this com¬munity of these persons who were guilty of the act of 1887, and the act of the 17th of January, would he dangerous and a constant menace to your people ?
The Queen. I do. I feel also that if they were sent away they should never be permitted to return—they or their children.
Mr. Carter. Unless you exercised clemency; or would you pronounce against them definitely now ?
1264 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
The Queen. I feel so; that they should be permanently banished, and their children.
Mr. Willis. The present Provisional Government while in existence has created certain obligations. Would you consent that all such obligations assumed in the proper course of administration should be assumed and paid by you?
Mr. Carter. May I make it clearer? The minister wishes to know if the obliga¬tions the Provisional Government has entered into under the law, you would be willing that your Government should assume and be responsible for those obligations.
The Queen. Yes.
Mr. Carter. I want to make matters clear. I think they have been careful as a rule to observe statutory provisions, but there have been exigencies that demanded actions that are entirely outside statutory provisions—appropriations made, moneys expended. The question is, how far the new Government should be responsible for such acts.
Mr. Willis. That is the question to which I desire an answer. Whether, in the exercise of their discretion, they have even adopted measures that may not be strictly conformable to the statutory law of the land, but if the money has been expended for the benefit of the people in the matter of roads or in any other way, and not put into their private pockets. If these expenditures have been of a public character, and there is no charge of corruption, would they be recognized, whether strictly in conformity with the statutory law or not?
The Queen. I think such expenditures are legal. I would recognize them.
Mr. Carter. There has been a very heavy expenditure for military.
Mr. Willis. That is a question I wish explicitly answered. Grant that there has been; would you or would you not consider that an expenditure in the proper course of administration?
The Queen. I have thought the matter over; but I felt that the confiscation of the properties belonging to these parties would cover.
Mr. Carter. You believe that persons should be held in their estates liable for such matters—military, police, and other expenditures of like nature?
The Queen. I do.
Mr. Carter. I want to say a word. I have never said one word to Her Majesty on the subject. These questions are entirely new to me.
Mr. Willis. It is entirely proper for you to ask such questions as you have. Any question that brings out the exact views of Her Majesty is entirely proper. I under¬stand [speaking to the Queen] then, in answer to the last question, that you would be willing to give an unqualified agreement that all obligations created by the Pro¬visional Government in the ordinary course of administration should be assumed, but that as to the expenditure for police and military defense you would leave the cost of that to be met out of property confiscated from those who were engaged in the revolution? Is that right?
The Queen. Yes.
Mr. Willis. I understand from you that you would be unwilling to give a pledge that would absolutely prevent the adoption of any measure of proscription or pun¬ishment for what has been done in the past, as to those setting up and supporting the Provisional Government. I understand you to be unwilling to give such a pledge?
The Queen. I do not understand.
Mr. Willis. I understand from the fact that you have affirmed our previous con¬versation, and from your conversation to-day, that you would not be willing to grant absolute amnesty both as to persons and property to those who have either supported or who have aided in setting up the Provisional Government. That you feel you could not do it?
The Queen. I feel I could not do it for the safety of our subjects.
Mr. Carter. That is, that the continued presence of these people is a continued
menace?
Mr. Willis. Do you adopt Mr. Carter's words?
The Queen. I do.
Mr. Carter. I would like to make one remark here. Do I understand your Maj¬esty that this matter is one that you may personally decide—that it is not one that you can commit to the ministers that you may appoint?
Mr. Willis. I am not instructed to ask such views. It is the views of the Queen herself I wish to ascertain. I have asked you to come here so that there can be no mistake in the matter. I am authorized, directly instructed and absolutely required to know three things—two of which I have asked, and I am now about to ask the third. It is this: Whether in the event of a restoration it would be a restoration under the existing constitution of the country or under a different constitution?
The Queen. I believe it would be better to have a government under a new con¬stitution that would he more suited to the present times and to the future. May I add——
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 1265
Mr. Willis. Anything at all. There is no restriction upon what yon may say.
The Queen. That it would be one that would give the same privileges to my sub¬jects as to the foreign subjects in my country. That they should receive the same advantages as the foreigners of which they have been deprived since 1887.
Mr. Willis. If I understand you the objection you have to the constitution of 1887 is the property qualification in voting for nobles, by which the native popula¬tion is largely excluded from suffrage.
The Queen. That is correct.
Mr. Willis. Is there any other objection to that constitution ?
The Queen. That is the principal objection. In the constitution I intended to pro¬mulgate, I changed the time of the term of the chief justice to six years, because I felt that if it were a life appointment that there are no bounds by which whoever holds the office—there would be no bounds by which he would carry on. There would be no limit to his actions.
Mr. Willis. In your remark as to the supreme court, do you limit it to the chief justice or does it include all the supreme court?
The Queen. All of them.
Mr. Willis. You mean not only the chief justice, but your judgment is that all of the supreme court should be appointed for six years?
The Queen. Yes; but if they proved themselves correct in their deportment they may be appointed over again for another six years.
Mr. Willis. How are their salaries to be determined?
The Queen. It would not affect the salary.
Mr. Willis. The salary would remain as at present?
The Queen. Yes.
Mr. Willis. The reason I ask you was that there has been some rumor that the question of salary was to be left to the legislature.
The Queen. I think the legislature would appropriate the sum.
Mr. Carter. The minister wishes to know whether the salary they entered the office with would be the salary they would continue to receive?
The Queen. Yes.
Mr. Carter. The idea is that they are not to be reduced to submit to the will of the legislature.
Mr. Willis. Is it your idea that the salaries they receive at the time of their appointment shall not be subject to change by the legislature or other action during the term of six years?
The Queen. Yes. These questions may be submitted to the cabinet.
Mr. Carter. That is another question. The minister wishes to get at your thought.
Mr. Willis. You are the only one now authorized to speak for your Government. In the conversation you have had to-day in the presence of Mr. Carter, you fully comprehend the meaning of all that has been said, and all that you have said, and you adhere to it?
The Queen. I do.
Mr. Willis. You adhere to it?
The Queen. I do.
Mr. Willis. When this is written out and you have made such changes as you deem proper, I will ask you to sign it. When signed, it will be submitted to the President. Is there anything further you desire to say at the present time?
The Queen. I wish to mention, speaking of the new constitution, that it would require some changes. The new constitution I wish to make up would require more members.
Mr. Willis. Of the legislature?
The Queen. No; in the cabinet.
Mr. Willis. Had you determined in your mind how many should be in the cabinet?
The Queen. Six instead of four.
Mr. Willis. Have you anything more you wish to say?
The Queen. Nothing more.
The within report of an interview held between the Queen and Mr. Willis, the United States minister, on the 16th instant (Mr. J. O. Carter being present at the said interview), has been read in our presence by Consul-General Mills, and agreed to by both of us as being full and correct in every particular.
Liliuokalani.
J. O. Carter.
Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, December 18, 1893.
Witness: Ellis Mills. (Indorsement:) Interview with ex-Queen, Saturday, December 16, 1893. This interview took place at the legation.
1266 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
It seems like it is raining incriminating documents !! But do you think pirates care ?? But pirates can preach the Gospel and tell you all about JUSTICE !!!
Here's one hell of a "leak" ! No black- birding pirate shall be punished at all ! So Hawaiians are to be toys, playthings ?? If you back the pirates this much, then you are a pirate too. When will you pirates make your next attempt on the Kingdom ?
[Confidential.]
Mr. Gresham to Mr. Willis.
No. 4.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, October 18, 1893.
SIR : Supplementing the general instructions which you have received with regard to your official duties, it is necessary to communicate to you, in confidence, special instructions for your guidance in so far as concerns the relation of the Government of the United States towards the de facto Government of the Hawaiian Islands.
The President deemed it his duty to withdraw from the Senate the treaty of annexation which has been signed by the Secretary of State and the agents of the Provisional Government, and to dispatch a trusted representative to Hawaii to impartially investigate the causes of the so-called revolution and ascertain and report the true situation in those Islands. This information was needed the better to enable the President to discharge a delicate and important public duty.
The instructions given to Mr. Blount, of which you are furnished with a copy, point out a line of conduct to be observed by him in his official and personal relations on the Islands, by which you will be guided so far as they are applicable and not inconsistent with what is herein contained.
It remains to acquaint you with the President's conclusions upon the facts embodied in Mr. Blount's reports and to direct your course in accordance therewith.
The Provisional Government was not established by the Hawaiian people, or with their consent or acquiescence, nor has it since existsd "with their consent. The Queen refused to surrender her powers to the Provisional Government until convinced that the minister of the United States had recognized it as the de facto authority, and would support and defend it with the military force of the United States, and that resistance would precipitate a bloody conflict with that force. She was advised and assured by her ministers and by leaders of the movement for the overthrow of her government, that if she surrendered under protest her case would afterwards be fairly considered by the President of the United States. The Queen finally wisely yielded to the armed forces of the United States then quartered in Honolulu, relying upon the good faith and honor of the President, when informed
464 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
of what had occurred, to undo the action of the minister and reinstate her and the authority which she claimed as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.
After a patient examination of Mr. Blount's reports the President is satisfied that the movement against the Queen, if not instigated, was encouraged and supported by the representative of this Government at Honolulu; that he promised in advance to aid her enemies in an effort to overthrow the Hawaiian Government and set up by force a new government in its place; and that he kept this promise by causing a detachment of troops to be landed from the Boston on the 16th of January, and by recognizing the Provisional Government the next day when it was too feeble to defend itself and the constitutional government was able to successfully maintain its authority against any threatening force other than that of the United States already landed.
The President has therefore determined that he will not send back to the Senate for its action thereon the treaty which he withdrew from that body for further consideration on the 9th day of March last.
On your arrival at Honolulu yon will take advantage of an early opportunity to inform the Queen of this determination, making known to her the President's sincere regret that the reprehensible conduct of the American minister and the unauthorized presence on land of a military force of the United States obliged her to surrender her sovereignty, for the time being, and rely on the justice of this Government to undo the flagrant wrong.
You will, however, at the same time inform the Queen that, when reinstated, the President expects that she will pursue a magnanimous course by granting full amnesty to all who participated in the movement against her, including persons who are, or have been, officially or otherwise, connected with the Provisional Government, depriving them of no right or privilege which they enjoyed before the so-called revolution. All obligations created by the Provisional Government in due course of administration should be assumed.
Having secured the Queen's agreement to pursue this wise and humane policy, which it is believed you will speedily obtain, you will then advise the executive of the Provisional Government and his ministers of the President's determination of the question which their action and that of the Queen devolved upon him, and that they are expected to promptly relinquish to her her constitutional authority.
Should the Queen decline to pursue the liberal course suggested, or should the Provisional Government refuse to abide by the President's decision, you will report the facts and await further directions.
In carrying out these general instructions you will be guided largely by your own good judgment in dealing with the delicate situation.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
W. Q. GRESHAM.
The Power to Deport: the "acid test"
Our Queen was surrounded by black- birding pirates from all over the world. In the negotiations for her REINSTATEMENT the question was: From Her Throne at 'Iolani Palace, was She to have the power to deport any enemy of Her monarchy ??
Was a pirate to have an inalienable right to stay in the Islands and make trouble ? Without the POWER to protect Herself, Reinstatement made no sense at all. A government without POWER is no government at all.
Have you noticed that the "independence" that some of the Reform- ists sell is a toothless Independence ?? An "independence" loaded with all kinds of "rights"; no sign of anything at all that even vaguely resembles a "power" ! The blackbirds have the "rights"; the pirates will take care of all the "powers". This was the deal that Grover Cleveland kept offering. This is the deal that the Reform- ists keep on offering the blackbirds TODAY. For a blackbird to entertain the notion of having the "Power to Deport" is pretentious and Unjust.
Imua Kukuna o ka la................................
Imua Hawaiian Nationals.........................
FREE HAWAII..........................................
10 months into the overthrow imagine the second thoughts of everyone involved. "I should have said this.....". In the morning Our Queen will be interviewed. How many sleepless nights she has had. Rumors of restoration to the Palace. Questions about the fate of the pirates. She laid the card on the table.
An ace !! Hard to play an ace. But she was not just any wahine. When everybody feels that you are just a trifling plaything, hard to take a place in the history of the world. She would not accept the idea that Pacific Islanders were mere toys, playthings. Her Palace and Her laws were just as good as any from Rome or Berlin !!
Aloha e Kukuna o ka la:
Mahalo ia 'o i ko mana'o ki'eki'e. I enjoyed reading your comment. A note: "Our Queen noted that there
would be beheadings according to the Kingdom Constitution." Beheadings were never part of the Kingdom's Constitution. Her remark was made in frustration and anger. She wanted the U.S. to know there were consequences to treasonous actions and the seriousness of the criminal actions committed by the perpetrators.
The death penalty used in Hawaii was by hanging not by beheading. Great Britain and parts of Europe practiced the odious execution of beheading such as with the guillotine in France and the infamous execution at the Tower of London. It was considered the extreme measure of execution. We see the evolution of the so-called civilized society transform from beheading to hanging, firing squad, electrocution, to injections to put down criminals of high crimes.
Ultimately, the crime of treason, the convicted would lose his rights of citizenship, his lands/property confiscated, and his life. The punishment could be tempered by the courts and mercy to the extent of the punishment. We know the Queen's compassion and diplomacy would not allow beheading to be used.
Despite the attempt to suppress the facts, the Library of Congress houses journals, periodicals and documents that are very revealing and available to the public; one just has to research and know what to look for which one would find there including private lettters. That's also wikiwiki leaks of wikileaks, eh? You're quite correct; we have long-term memories that is characteristic of our people that never relied only on written material.
the WikiWiki- Leaks. These were letters, cables, conversations, etc. of diplomats that
comprise the Blount Report, one of the most suppressed documents in Hawai'i. These
"leaks" are an inspiration to David Keanu Sai to keep resurrecting Lili'uokalani. Please, take
notice of how discouraged you get in trying to deal with this content. That is by design !
Pirates are still TODAY trying to guard these "leaks".
http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/blount.html
Hawaiians, being Polynesians, are known for their great memories, the ability to recall
accurately great numbers of detail. What's keeping an ambitious youth from memorizing the
complete Blount Report ??! The conclusion of the Blount Report ??: Lili'uokalani must
resume Her Reign !
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next