Is it possible to make sound decisions in matters of great public importance based upon a mistaken understanding of history? I don't think so. H. Christopher Bartolomucci and Viet D. Dinh seem to (Island Voices, "Congress has jurisdiction on Hawaiians," Nov. 1).

If one internationally recognized state: (1) invades another internationally recognized state in violation of a treaty between the two states and in violation of international law; (2) deposes the lawful government of the invaded state; (3) installs a puppet government in the invaded state; and, (4) annexes the invaded state, then, applying international law, the invaded state is "occupied." Its citizens and subjects have not been turned into members of a tribe.

"Sovereignty" never simply "ceases." Governments can be altered through constitutional means, internal revolt or by foreign intervention, but "sovereignty" of a recognized state may only be affected through merger with another sovereign state (for example, the United States in 1787), or dismemberment (for example, Yugoslavia in the 1990s).

Applying international law to the historical facts, there was no merger of Hawaiian sovereignty to U.S. sovereignty. A unilateral annexation by Congress is not a bilateral "merger" of sovereignty. Hawaiian nationals are not in the same situation as "Native Americans" or "Native Alaskans." Hawaiians are subjects of a sovereign state that has been occupied.

Bartolomucci and Dinh flat-out misread the facts and that, inevitably, makes their legal opinion as weak as their history.