Replies

The last clause of Article I states, "...to the meridian of one hundred and ninety-three degrees west longitude [167 degrees east], so as to include in the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian islands east of that meridian."

Why do you keep avoiding the question? Why is it so important to you do defend your president? Why do you continue to call it a myth that the Hon. Joseph Miller wrote the following:

"But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care."

The last clause of Article I states, "...to the meridian of one hundred and ninety-three degrees west longitude

Let us keep the whole sentence in which 193° appears. It is not the border, it is the end of the angled border.

The same western limit, beginning at the same initial point, proceeds thence in a course nearly southwest, through Behring’s Straits and Behring’s Sea, so as to pass midway between the northwest point of the island of St. Lawrence and the southeast point of Cape Choukotski, to the meridian of one hundred and seventy-two west longitude; thence, from the intersection of that meridian, in a southwesterly direction, so as to pass midway between the island of Attou and the Copper Island of the Kormandorski couplet or group, in the North Pacific Ocean, to the meridian of one hundred and ninety-three degrees west longitude, so as to include in the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian Islands east of that meridian.

It is not every thing east of 193°. Again, dividing line is starting midway between the islands of Krusenstern and Ratmanoff, proceeding southwest between St. Lawrence and Cape Choukotski, to midway between Attou and Copper and continuing in this direction until it reaches the 193 meridian.

So how can Copper Island be east of the boundary, when the boundary line is defined to be east of the island?

Copper Island is not part of the Aleutian Islands. Aleutian Islands, chain of small islands that separate the Bering Sea (north) from the main portion of the Pacific Ocean (south) and extend in an arc southwest, then northwest, for about 1,100 miles (1,800 km) from the tip of the Alaska Peninsula to Attu Island, Alaska, U.S. {from theEncyclopædia Britannica}

As stated in the treaty it is part of the Kormandorski couplet.

Why is it so important to you do defend your president?

I posted the same refutation of this same myth back when George Bush was accused of it. As several of us have pointed out, this has been refuted on Free Republic many times over many years.

Why do you continue to call it a myth that the Hon. Joseph Miller wrote the following:

With your help, I now know Joe Miller wrote that. It only lowers my opinion of Joe Miller. It does not change the words of the 1867 treaty.

Sorry, I left out one reply.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy.

It was not in secrecy; it has always been reality. Every real state map, include the official maps used by the State of Alaska have NEVER shown these islands to be part of Alaska.

The map you posted yourself in #57 shows the same angled line, dividing the nations with Copper Island in the Russian Territory.

In the interest of sharing information showing this is not a recent change of border, I found this document while searching on the subject.

It follows the lines as described in the 1867. This was written by the Department of State in 1965.

International Boundary Study
U.S. – Russia Convention Line of 1867
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/limitsinseas/ibs014.pdf

It give the connecting line of following points as the Western Boundary.

72° 00’.0 N, 168° 58’ 22”.587 W
65° 30’.0 N, 168° 58’ 22”.587 W
64° 12’.3 N, 172° 00’ W
53° 45’.0 N 170° 16’.0 W
50° 36’.4 N 167° 00’ E

193° meridian coincides with 167° East Longitude.

This was written decades ago. It is not a secret conspiracy involving President Bush or Obama.

The Hon. Joseph Miller wrote the following:

"But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by the _resident or Secretary Klint0n.

"The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t ~~seem to~~ care."

Exactly. You hit the nail right on the Thackney Thick head.

Even the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled these islands outside of Alaska. The bold emphasis is mine. Further info at the link.

D. Denardo v. State of Alaska (12/23/94),
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
http://touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-4156.htm

Daniel DeNardo claims interests in five islands which lie north of Siberia in the Arctic Ocean: Wrangel, Herald, Henrietta, Bennett and Jeannette. When he attempted to record these interests in the Nome recording district, the recorder refused to accept DeNardo’s documents, taking the position that the islands are not within the Nome recording district.

DeNardo sued, seeking equitable relief and damages. He alleged that “[t]he State of Alaska being responsible for the designation of the recording district must designate a place of recordation for plaintiff's property rights as it has recorded other’s [sic] property rights in the state of Alaska.”

The State moved to dismiss, claiming that it lacks authority to designate recording districts for the Arctic Islands. The State's motion was granted. DeNardo appeals. We affirm.

The Arctic Islands are not located within the Nome recording district or any of the State's other thirty-three recording districts. Under AS 40.17.020(a), DeNardo’s documents may not be recorded in any recording district in Alaska.

Moreover, the State has no duty to create a recording district for the Arctic Islands, as it is not governing them. The question of sovereignty over the Arctic Islands is a subject committed to the executive and legislative branches of the United States government. See United States v. Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1, 35 (1960). Until and unless the United States government indicates that the Arctic Islands are part of the State of Alaska, the State has no duty to accept for recording documents affecting title to real property on the islands.

Out of curiosity (and I do apologize if this has been mentioned in the thread-—my FRee time is zero. I’m replying at work) wouldn’t this considered a treaty ? Wouldn’t the Imperial Senate have to approve this ?

I know I’m being a tad naive here, but I still hope for happy endings.