Military Land Occupation and Legal Frameworks in Hawaii

Current Land Percentage: The speaker identifies that the military currently holds approximately $23\%$ to $25\%$ of the land today.
Historical Context of Acquisition: During periods when martial law was not in effect, the military had to establish alternative legal justifications and mechanisms for possessing the land, as they could not simply seize it without cause.

Lease Structure: The military utilizes specific leasing agreements to maintain control over land. These are characterized as sixty-year ( $60$ -year) leases.
Purpose of Leases: These agreements are intended to ensure that military activities and training exercises remain confined to designated geographical areas.
Environmental Boundary Issues: The speaker notes a significant disconnect between legal borders and environmental realities. Although the leases establish borders for training, the environment does not have "solid borders" that contain the effects of military activity within those specified zones.

The Māhele: Much of the land currently taken or possessed by the military is historically linked to the "Mahela" (Māhele) discussions.
The Land Act: This specific piece of legislation is noted as the successor to or replacement for the Māhele.
Function of the Land Act: The Land Act facilitates the taking of the "moly" (likely referring to Moku or public/government lands).
Public Exclusion: Under the framework of the Land Act, the public is theoretically supposed to dictate the terms of military leases. However, the speaker asserts that the current functioning of the state effectively enables the exclusion of the public from the negotiation of these terms, which may lead to mass civil unrest.

Territory Period and the Kingdom: During the territorial period, the presence of the military was maintained as a prophylactic measure against the "threat of a return to the kingdom."
Sovereignty in 1992: The speaker mentions that in $1992$ , it was considered "crazy" or radical to suggest the existence of a sovereign Hawaiian entity.
Modern Advantages: Today, there are numerous other advantages cited for maintaining a military presence beyond the initial historical justifications.

Limitations of Sovereignty Language: The speaker suggests that general "sovereignty language" lacks "teeth" or legal efficacy in contemporary disputes.
Specific Protections: Legal defense is most effective when specific physical locations are threatened. The speaker highlights that "my home is under attack" or describing why a specific "school is under attack" are the primary points where the law provides actionable protection.
Customary Rights: While ideas regarding customary rights are enshrined in law for the public, they are described as being currently "off the table" in certain contexts.
Racial and Ethnic Legal Barriers: The speaker concludes by noting that certain legal avenues or customary rights are difficult to defend or attack because they are not viewed through specific ethnic or racial lenses in the current legal environment.