Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] NYNJ - My take<br/>
Date: May 13, 2003 @ 00:53<br/>
Author: Arif Samad (Arif Samad &lt;fHoiberg@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="10058.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="10065.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic10029.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="10062.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="10064.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1625770263">As Charles Barkley named his book, I say &quot;I could be<br/>
wrong...but I doubt it.&quot;  Seriously though, it is just<br/>
my opinion and no way the gospel truth, just as I see<br/>
your arguments as opinion.  I was just providing a<br/>
counterpoint to your arguments, which may have<br/>
validity, but which I won&#39;t accept as gospel truth<br/>
until proven otherwise on something more than a<br/>
170-year old document (we are talking about a boundary<br/>
NOW, after all), even which can be argued against. <br/>
Providing a counterpoint needs to show how a person&#39;s<br/>
point can be wrong and may sound like a dismissal<br/>
unfortunately.  This is no way a knock to you, as I<br/>
have also doubted existence of international enclaves<br/>
until proven wrong on the group.<br/>
Ellis Island does not only involve rights, but it<br/>
involves a boundary.  Supreme court has taken many<br/>
cases of trading or water rights, and it has taken<br/>
cases on boundaries.  I tend to doubt that they would<br/>
have taken a case with no true state boundary and no<br/>
rights involved.  Also the fact that the court doesn&#39;t<br/>
clearly distinguish the boundary being only a<br/>
jurisdictional one makes it, only in practical terms,<br/>
a state boundary at the CURRENT time, even if it was<br/>
practically only a jurisdictional boundary earlier. <br/>
As I was saying, making too many distinctions can<br/>
totally provide misguided assumption.  (On the subject<br/>
of assumptions, I once had an argument on About.com<br/>
with somebody about what kind of a government Bahrain<br/>
was because he made the same mistake of overanalyzing<br/>
a book on government.)<br/>
By the way, your insistence on Guantanamo as a<br/>
comparable idea to this is totally misguided as the<br/>
presence of lease itself is considered to be a factor<br/>
in sovereignty.  To have comparable ideas in the two<br/>
areas, we will need to discount the factor of leasing.<br/>
 To me the Vietnamese, German and Korean division in<br/>
jurisdiction was or is a fairer comparison and in all<br/>
cases they were or are considered to be countries in<br/>
most practical circles. <br/>
Arif<br/>
PS The GeoInfo article says that the two islands were<br/>
under the sovereign authority of New York.  If a<br/>
magazine accepts that contention, can we really<br/>
dismiss it?<br/>
<br/>
__________________________________<br/>
Do you Yahoo!?<br/>
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://search.yahoo.com">http://search.yahoo.com</a></div>