NLPC Continues Bogus Campaign Against Google Video

Would A $100 Billion Fine Get The US To Pay Attention To Antigua's WTO Win?

from the your-attention-please... dept

Thu, Sep 27th 2007 10:28am — Mike Masnick

We've covered the long and detailed saga of Antigua fighting the US via the WTO, but the short summary is this: Antigua claims that the US is violating a free trade agreement in banning online gambling (many online gambling firms are in Antigua). The WTO agreed with Antigua and the US proceeded to ignore the ruling. The WTO again sided with Antigua... and the US pretended the WTO had sided with the US... and again ignored the ruling. This has happened a few more times, with the US eventually unilaterally changing the terms of the free trade agreement -- which didn't satisfy either the WTO or Antigua. Of course, with Antigua being such a small country there has been little in the way of ramifications for the US for ignoring the ruling. That's why Antigua is now pushing for the right to ignore US copyrights and patents as a remedy. However, there may be an even more persuasive remedy. Back over the summer, the EU indicated that it might start siding with Antigua in the dispute -- and it's a lot more difficult for the US to simply ignore the EU. To make the situation even more fun, the latest news is that gambling firms in the EU are pushing for $100 billion in damages from the US. That's certainly an unlikely number, but it's going to get plenty of attention either way. If the EU (and Japan, apparently) really do take Antigua's side in this, the US may finally be forced to acknowledge that it lost. However, it still seems quite unlikely that it will stop the ban on online gambling any time soon.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: antigua, online gambling, wto

83 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

TheDock22, 27 Sep 2007 @ 10:49am

Nah
If the EU (and Japan, apparently) really do take Antigua's side in this, the US may finally be forced to acknowledge that it lost. However, it still seems quite unlikely that it will stop the ban on online gambling any time soon.

And what are they going to do if we ignore them again? Declare war? These countries seem to forget the number of times the US has helped bail them out of bad situations. Let them whine because they can't do much more than that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ja, 27 Sep 2007 @ 10:56am

Actually - the EU and Japan can do quite a bit here. They'll be allowed to raise tarrifs to recoup the losses. That'll negate the beneficial effects the fall of the dollar against the Euro has had on US exports. If the EU and Japan choose which items to hit with these tarrifs, it can do a LOT of damage to the US economy. At a time when the US economy doesn't really need it....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pandlcg, 27 Sep 2007 @ 10:58am

Re: Nah
And what does that have to do with the US breaking the law they agreed to? "We helped you out that other time so let us get away with this one"....not so much
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:03am

Um - nothing? Why should it.

"Hey - we helped you out, so now we can ignore a treaty we signed and agreed to abide by, and you can't say anything!" - what's up with that?

And I'd say that the EU and Japan have paid back the US for that help by now. Or should the French claim the same of the US for the help given the Continental Army in the War of Independence?

"Washington - we helped you against the British back in 1776: please start licking our feet."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shmengie, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:06am

here's the u.s., again, pushing it's (bullshit) morality on the rest of the world. i hope we do lose a $100,000,000,000 suit. we deserve to lose. does our government really think online gambling is more harmful than killing its' young men and women in the middle east?

most of the time, i'm pretty fucking embarrassed to be an american.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:18am

Why do so many of you hate America?

Shmengie, I am embarrassed that you are an American too.

As for France, WWI paid them back for 1776. They still owe us for WWII.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NoShit, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:19am

Civil War!
We need to raise up and burn this sucker down. All these crooks have taken over our country and are slowly running us into the ground.. They are killing us all and we must take a stand! Fight these dirty bastards....

DON'T STEAL!! The .GOV hates competition!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shmengie, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:21am

Re:
yeah, you're an anonymous coward for a reason. other than blind flag-waving, you got something to say?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Falindraun, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:23am

Whatever..?
Time and time again the US will continue to do whatever the heck it wants to do. Does that mean its always the right decision? No. Does that mean its always the wrong decision? No. In life there are good decisions and bad ones. Its just the US has the power and a big enough ego to ignore the ruling. To the US ignoring it is the easy way out, even if they do fess up and pay the fine. Who do you think is going to pay that fine? We are through increased taxes when taxes are high enough already (and don't tell me they aren't, cause they are). The end result is that the US will continue to ignore everything that doesn't meet its standards, and again do whatever they want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hirohito, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:25am

Re: Nah
And what are they going to do if we ignore them again? Declare war? These countries seem to forget the number of times the US has helped bail them out of bad situations.
Yeah you really bailed out Japan by helping them rebuild after some asshole nation dropped atomic bombs on their cities. Who was that again? Iran? North Korea? Soviet Union? Nazi Germany? Oh that's right, there's only one nation on earth that's ever used atomic weapons in war, The United States (God bless the U. S. of A).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:27am

Sounds like the Canada US lumber dispute. The US government does whatever it wants because it feels it has to answer to no one. I think Canada should cut off the Oil tap and cut the ties between the power grids and see how much they like that!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous CowHerd, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:32am

Not bloody likely
It's much more likely we'd simply continue ignoring the WTO and simply burden Antigua with pointless bureaucracy into non-existence.

It's worked so well for the Democrats here in the states...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous CowHerd, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:34am

Re: Re: Nah
*laughs*

Let's see.... We were um, "At War". They failed to agree to our terms of unconditional surrender. Of course, there was a bit more to it than that, but put simply, it was deemed the quickest and least consequential move at the time. Yes, even in terms of cost of lives.

But I digress...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Cowherd, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:37am

Re: Re:
You mean other than what he just said?

I love how people on the *anonymous* internet can get so pious towards folks who actually don't try to hide their anonymity.

You discredit *everything* he says because of his anonymity?

Let's have it then. Your real name and address. Otherwise, you're not only just another "anonymous coward", you're one that tries pitifully to hide that fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:38am

Re:
I don't think Canada would like that much either. It's not a one-sided benefit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:39am

Re: Re:
He could say your an ass but I will do it for him. You are an ass. Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:42am

So if I understand this situation, Antigua operates online gaming, it is outlawed in America (although I disagree with that ruling) and the WTO says it is part of free trade and we have to allow it? Fuck that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:48am

Re:
If france owes us for WW2, then we owe the blacks all over our country slave reparations for what our forefathers did. Frankly, I find either concept utterly ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:52am

The US will invade Antigua and install a puppet government, which will officially drop the matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous of Course, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:56am

Re: Re: Nah
Try setting you loathing of the USA aside for
a moment and looking at it in the proper
historical context.

Dropping the atomic bomb saved more lives than
it took. One of the most striking moments in
the book Hiroshima (written by a survivor) is
the people being brought to tears by the emperor
of Japan announcing the surrender.

It was a brutal act, but it was the right thing
to do at the time. Japan wasn't going to surrender
and the estimated loss of lives (on both sides)
required for the invasion of Japan was staggering.

If you don't see the differences between the USA
and Iran, North Korea, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany,
visit www.democide.com Also by invoking the Nazi
on teh intarwebs you're immediately branded as a saliva dripping rabid moonbat... justly so.

Frankly, if you offer someone aid, you shouldn't
expect anything in return. So I don't support that
argument.

I still don't see how gambling is construed as a
protected form of trade and not narcotics, or what
have you. If it's illegal in the USA they should
have a right to prevent others from providing it
within their borders. Regardless of the method
of delivery.

I don't think non-state sanctioned gambling should
be illegal but that's another issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
norman619, 27 Sep 2007 @ 11:58am

Re: Nah
LOL!!! you are priceless. Helping them at various points in the past has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The US expects others to abide by the WTO rules but when the US is expected to do the same the US chooses to ignore the rules? I sure hope you don't have any kids. I hope Antigua opts to become the new haven for content pirates. It's understandable why many nations dislike the US. We like to enforce the rules but we sure don't like to follow them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
norman619, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:00pm

Re: Re: Nah
You have no clue what you are talking about. MANY more lives would have been lost had we not nuked Japan. And please let's not for get what got us into the war in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:05pm

We owe everyone for everything, and apparently the U.S. sucks. Go us. Do you think anyone else ignores the WTO? Probably not, just us. I think we should just quit being a country, because we don't like a loophole some crappy little country is exploiting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomThoughts, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:05pm

Norman619, its not that we like to enforce the rules, its that we like to make the rules.

Fact is, we are a superpower. You don't mess with a superpower. I would consider China to be a superpower also. If China would drive its tanks over its citizens again, what do you think we would do about it? Not attend the olympics? Talk bad about them in the media? Talk about limiting their imports?

We could walk in and wipe out Antigua and there really isn't a whole lot anyone could do about it. I am not saying we will or should, but that is a fact.

Life isn't fair. We have the bomb and Iran doesn't. Guess what, the US and a few other countries (that also have the bomb) won't let them get it.

Everything else is just talk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
norman619, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:06pm

Re:
Nice way of avoiding the issue at hand. The US agreed to follow WTO rules as part of membership. All this other BS has noting to do with the fact that the US simply does not want to follow the rules it agreed to. You are gonna teach your kids it's ok to go back on your word if you helped the person you gave your word to in the past? How old are you? 12?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
poophead, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:11pm

Re: shmengie
Please move to another country if you are embarassed to be an American. You should lose your citizenship to the next illegal Mexican who is proud to be here and loves American ideals and history. This isn't about us pushing our morality on anyone, it is about a ban which is only effective in this country. We have the right to control gambling in our country through bans, and this should not be treated as a product or service that the WTO has jurisdiction over in terms of international "trade". The other posters have made some intelligent contributions that somewhat make up for your intellectually vacant comments. The EU and Japan have recourse in terms of tarrif adjustment. But of course we can do the same to them. In the end, they probably wouldn't want to effect bilateral trade between US-EU and US-Japan over a dispute concerning tiny Antigua. Nothing against Antigua, just being factual: it isn't incredibly significant to any above mentioned parties' interests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:12pm

here's the u.s., again, pushing it's (bullshit) morality on the rest of the world

What morality? They didn't outlaw ALL gambling, there's still lots of "approved" gambling. If it was a moral issue they'd have outlawed all of gambling.

While they may have phrased the passage of the law as "morality" it most certainly was anything but morality that they were pushing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheDock22, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:13pm

Re: Re: Nah
The US expects others to abide by the WTO rules but when the US is expected to do the same the US chooses to ignore the rules?

How is online gambling part of any agreement we signed with the WTO? Gambling is outlawed in many forms around the US and the government has the right to outlaw online gambling. It's illegal to begin with, but the WTO is stepping in and saying we have to make it legal? Why?

Does that mean we suddenly have to declare drugs legal just because Columbia takes it's case to the WTO? The WTO shouldn't even be involved since it is a law passed in our country to extend something that was already illegal in the first place. Gambling for the most part is illegal in some forms in certain states, but these gambling websites don't take this into accounts (i.e. black jack and most table games). We have the right in our country to outlaw something and not fear retribution from some organization like the WTO.

As for WWII and the bombing of Japan...They were killing our troops and performing unspeakable crimes on our POW citizens. We asked for surrender many times and they ignored us. It was a sad recourse in history, but I doubt anyone in the US realized the nuke would not only kill the initial people, but continue to poison the survivors. I think we grossly underestimated the amount of damage the bombs would do and have since felt remorse for the decision.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:13pm

Re:
Go live in the Sudan then
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DOUBLEZER00, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Nah
Online gambling is not illegal in the U.S. - but funding it is. The U.S. outlawed companies transferring money to be used in online gambling, that's the real issue here. It's not comparable to drugs because drugs are illegal, not just the sale. Just to recap, you can legally gamble online but it is illegal for a company to transfer your money into an online gambling account.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomThoughts, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:18pm

Norman, no need to be rude. I am not 12, just realistic.

The US believes that online gambling should not be allowed. Why should the US govt allow the WTO to override our laws of the land.

If a country were to allow child porn, would the WTO force the US to allow that also?

Following the rules? Can I import booze into Saudi Arabia? No, it is outlawed there. Why can't the US prevent online gambling?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eliot, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:21pm

Godwin's Law
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomThoughts, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:24pm

Dock22, way off topic here, but the firebombings that took place before we dropped the 2 bombs killed more people than the nukes. Just saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A. L. Flanagan, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:25pm

Re: Hating America
Anonymous Coward said
>> Why do so many of you hate America?

It is not "hating America" to state the US's actions in this case are embarrassing and hypocritical. We're (meaning of course the Bush administration) acting like one set of rules applies to the entire rest of the world, but not to us. Did I leave out "arrogant"?

Don't forget that we've been major backers of the WTO treaties we're ignoring here. And, of course, we're invoking them whenever a trade issue is not going our way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Survivor, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:30pm

Re: History
Just a small history note but France saved our butts a second time in the War of 1812. At best we are even.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
name, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:35pm

Re:
ditto
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheDock22, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nah
Online gambling is not illegal in the U.S. - but funding it is.

From what I hear if a certain form of gambling is illegal in your state, then it is illegal to do online. So if I go online to play Blackjack I could be fined because Blackjack is illegal in my state.

But I have also heard that it is the act of transferring money into your gambling account that is the illegal part (from banks or any source). Does anyone know for sure what the actual law says concerning online gambling?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drjones, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:41pm

Re: Re: shmengie
Im rooting for Antigua on this one. I agree that the EU/Japan wouldnt be likely to adjust tarrifs.

What will be interesting is, if they get permission from the UN to ignore US copyrights. A new untouchable haven for file sharing services would pop up over night.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Murphy, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:43pm

WTO
@RandomThoughts: The WTO isn't overriding the laws of the land. The US is welcome to restrict trade however it wants. However, if the U.S. is a party to a treaty organization (e.g., WTO) and if the U.S. violates the terms of that treaty, then the treaty organization members can take retribution per the terms of the treaty.

To quote the linked article: "The high profile prosecution led the Antiguan authorities to file a formal complaint with the W.T.O., because the U.S. continued to allow US companies to offer various forms of remote domestic gambling while aggressively prosecuting Antiguan companies under legislation originally drafted to fight the mob."

Apparently, the treaty underlying the W.T.O. -- a treaty the U.S. signed -- prevents selective enforcement of laws to benefit domestic firms at the expense of foreign firms.

To quote another article: "In essence, if the United States was going to say that 'remote' gambling was so bad that it was necessary to prohibit it across the board, then it indeed needed to be consistent about that, and not use the claim as a way to discriminate against foreign trade...The United States has a wide variety of legal, domestic-only remote gambling operating currently...Further, something that so many people have not realised but this last panel finally got right, and that is that federal law doesn't prohibit remote gambling at all - just remote gambling that crosses a state or international border."

So, to use your example of child porn, if the U.S. enforces its child porn laws with roughly equal zeal for both domestic distributors and foreign distributors, they could probably fight off an attempt by some other nation to have sanctions placed because of interference with the trade of child porn.

Similarly, with your example of alcohol and Saudi Arabia, if Saudi Arabia enforces its anti-alcohol laws equally between Saudis and foreign nationals, the U.S. probably wouldn't be able to have sanctions placed on Saudi Arabia for interference in the sale of alcohol.

If the U.S. doesn't want to be subject to the terms of international treaties, it simply has to stop signing them. It can't sign them and then ignore them, any more than I can sign a mortgage and then not make my monthly payments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:46pm

Re: Re: shmengie
Please move to another country if you are embarassed to be an American. You should lose your citizenship to the next illegal Mexican who is proud to be here and loves American ideals and history.

Yes! screw the first amendment! anyone who doesn't like the US or tries to criticize it loses their citizenship to an immigrant who is also not allowed to criticize the US or else!

puh-lease!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheDock22, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:48pm

Re: WTO
he United States has a wide variety of legal, domestic-only remote gambling operating currently

What exactly are these? I've never heard that just because an online gambling company is based in the US that you can gamble there. Can you link the source for me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jhunter, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:48pm

Re:
The difference is there is legal gambling in the United States (Las Vegas, Tunica, Atlantic City, etc) and we ban other people's gambling, hence a free trade violation. Its like allowing Ford and GM to operate, but telling Toyota and Volkswagen they aren't allowed to import cars anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
norman619, 27 Sep 2007 @ 12:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Nah
If you bothered to read up on the dispute between the US and Antigua you'd already know. Many of the other people here seem to understand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
krm, 27 Sep 2007 @ 1:10pm

Getting in a little late, but take drugs as an example specifically steriods... legal in some countries, not america do we have to allow them in. NO. Does this violate free trade?NO! Even tho we prescribe them to some poeple?NO
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 1:11pm

Re:
Read the Constitution much? Article VI Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. So unless a U.S. judge rules the WTO and our free trade agreement with Antigua to be unconstitutional, such treaties have the same weight as the constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomThoughts, 27 Sep 2007 @ 1:13pm

The govt. considers online gambling illegal. You think that Trump wouldn't have one up and running if he could?

Think about it, its not that difficult. The US law says online gambling is illegal, the WTO didn't accept that there is a difference between online gambling and physical gambling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheDock22, 27 Sep 2007 @ 1:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nah
If you bothered to read up on the dispute between the US and Antigua you'd already know. Many of the other people here seem to understand.

Not really since they are saying we outlaw online gambling only from other countries when in fact we outlaw it period. The WTO need to realize online gambling and domestic gambling are two completely different things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bill, 27 Sep 2007 @ 1:33pm

Re: Mark Murphy's post
Great post! Something that struck me as funny though, "It can't sign them and then ignore them, any more than I can sign a mortgage and then not make my monthly payments."

Yes, but the government does exactly that with our mounting trade deficit. (9 trillion and growing...)

Evidently, American's aren't even supposed to view gambling ads anymore...as the site below states.
http://www.the-best-online-casinos-tips.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous freak, 27 Sep 2007 @ 1:37pm

I say legalize gambling. It creates more opportunities for people to start a successful online business as long as suckers are willing to bet their money.

Hell, I can program an online gambling game in a few days that would attract a ridiculous amount of users.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Johkdifo, 27 Sep 2007 @ 1:38pm

"That's why Antigua is now pushing for the right to ignore US copyrights and patents as a remedy"

right in the a**
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Victor Mess, 27 Sep 2007 @ 1:49pm

Violation
The last time a country violated something that the US wanted they ended up going to war against that country. Now how fair would it be for Antigua to bomb Florida because the US is infringing on Antiguan interests, they have weapons of mass destruction, they imprison millions of american people and the WTO has told them to allow (free) american citizens to gamble in Antigua online if they want too. How the tables turn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 1:59pm

Re: shmengie
shmengie says "i hope we do lose a $100,000,000,000"

You do hate America. I bet you get a woody when you hear American troops die in Iraq.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheDock22, 27 Sep 2007 @ 2:01pm

Re: Violation
The last time a country violated something that the US wanted they ended up going to war against that country.

Yes...the war had everything to do with oil and not one bit to do with the fact that Saddam Hussein was alienating and killing his citizens based on their beliefs, that they were harboring a terrorist who killed thousands of Americans, and also continually lied to us and prevented the UN from performing proper checks for dangerous weapons....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomThoughts, 27 Sep 2007 @ 2:05pm

Re: Re: Violation
Dock, sounds like Iran should be the next target.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed, 27 Sep 2007 @ 2:12pm

Ha HA
I Hate do gooders that try to Legislate
morality . And you can check and see that some of the same people that voted for this have been found in the restroom or emailing boys
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous of Course, 27 Sep 2007 @ 2:15pm

Re: Violation
Your spurious, simplistic argument is tedious,
unimaginative, unconvincing and boring. It is
a failed rant, cut and pasted from other failed
rants.

The only thing I dislike more than the Iraq war
are the paper thin intellects that bring it up
no matter what issue regarding the USA is the
topic of discussion.

P.S Did you read about the Syrian technicians
that died recently while trying to load a VX agent
warhead onto one of their missiles? Terrible loss,
but I'm sure it was done in the name of science.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheDock22, 27 Sep 2007 @ 2:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Violation
Unfortunately I think it's going that way. I don't really agree with the war because I don't think there is anyway to fix that region which is run mostly by extreme religious ideals. I just don't like the argument that the US went over their purely for the oil because that's not true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomThoughts, 27 Sep 2007 @ 2:33pm

Dock, I agree.

Now, back to the issue at point.

It really is pretty simple. The US doesn't allow Internet gambling. It does allow physical gambling. The WTO decided that we should allow Internet gambling and since we don't, want to do something about it.

The question is should we allow a foreign governing body dictate what our domestic laws are?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Murphy, 27 Sep 2007 @ 2:37pm

Remote vs. online gambling
@RandomThoughts: I don't know if it was Antigua or the W.T.O. who raised it, but the complaint appears to stem around "remote" gambling, not "online" gambling. The U.S. does restrict online gambling (albeit possibly with varying enforcement levels, but that's a separate issue). However, the U.S. does allow other forms of gambling without a physical presence, such as:

-- You don't have to be at a horse racing track to bet on horse races, courtesy of off-track betting (O.T.B.) parlors. I seem to recall various state-level initiatives to allow telephone-based O.T.B., though I don't follow horse racing and don't know how far along that got. As far as I know, O.T.B. even lets you bet across state lines, on races held elsewhere in the country.

-- You don't have to be at the facility where lottery numbers are drawn to participate in a lottery.

Antigua basically then had a two-tier defense against a U.S. "morals" claim:

1. The U.S. can't be morally against gambling, since it has state-sponsored gambling (lotteries)

2. The U.S. can't be against remote gambling, since it has state-regulated remote gambling (lotteries, horse racing), and there's no logical difference between remote gambling by visiting a Quik-E-Mart (lotteries) and remote gambling by computer.

In reality, there are differences, such as an easier time enforcing age restrictions on gambling at Quik-E-Marts, but they apparently weren't enough, or the US didn't invest much in a defense at the W.T.O. hearings. I get the sense that the U.S. pretty much ignored the whole W.T.O. mess -- either we need to live up to our international obligations (and possibly work to change the W.T.O.'s procedures and policies to avoid this issue in the future), or we need to withdraw from the W.T.O. The former takes work, the latter has financial and political ramifications.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PTTG, 27 Sep 2007 @ 2:40pm

Bah! Just wait 20 years
In 10-20 years oil production will be a fraction of what it is now and demand will have skyrocketed due to China and India industrializing and so prices will jump up to, by conservative estimate, more than 10 fold. Prices for food and anything else transported by truck or boat, or things made from oil will jump as well. The world economy, fragile as it is, will implode, and we at least won't have to worry about Copyright laws anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 3:17pm

Re: Re: Violation
@dock22

what known terrorist that had killed thousands of US citizens was Saddam harboring?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck, 27 Sep 2007 @ 3:20pm

Re: Re: History
And the US stepped in and took over in Vietnam causing the US to take the hit.

It has nothing to do with who owes who favors. It has to do with what is right.

US law says online gambling is illegal. In order to enforce the law, the US felt it necessary to stop the transfer of money from US banks to known offshore gambling locations, in this case, Antigua.

The US is a member of the WTO and has agreed to abide by its rulings. The WTO agreed with Antiguas claim that the US violated trade agreements. The US ignored, repeatedly, the WTO rulings.

Those are the generalities of the situation. Argue on those and not who saved who in some bygone war because that just adds more points that no one can agree on.

And argue doesn't mean flame, whine or going off on uncomprehensible tangents. It means to debate the facts (which is a pipe dream in itself due to no one being able to agree on the facts).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheDock22, 27 Sep 2007 @ 3:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Violation
Uh...Bin Laden...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheDock22, 27 Sep 2007 @ 3:24pm

Re: Remote vs. online gambling
Hmm...well that makes some sense, but I still do not think online gambling is related to remote gambling because of the medium. Still the remote gambling requires a physical presence somewhere along the way, whether that is buying the tickets at the Quik-E-Mart or place a bet with your bookie. Online gambling does not have that sort of interaction. I think the US needs to specify that online gambling is definitely outlawed and not related to remote gambling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 27 Sep 2007 @ 3:30pm

Yeah, well our politicians bought it, so they gotta live with it now. Just another way they are waisting taxpayer's dollars.

Please... don't vote for any incumbents this election, lean as 'out of the box' politically as you can.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Old Guy, 27 Sep 2007 @ 4:01pm

Broken Treaties!!!
1. I Love my country
2. The government sucks
3. The GOVernment (and this true of most not just the US) has only abide by them until the become inconvenient. Oops except the ones that get us into wars. Funny how that works.
Couple quotes for you:

"Treaties, you see, are like girls and roses; they last while they last." - Charles de Gaulle (never thought I'd quote a frenchman, Oh wait Voltaire was a frenchmen)

Treaties are made by statesman.
"Now I know what a statesman is; he's a dead politician. We need more statesmen." - Bob Edwards
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Old Guy, 27 Sep 2007 @ 4:04pm

Re: Broken Treaties!!!
Oops sometimes I type faster than I think:
3. The GOVernment (and this true of most not just the US)only abides by them (treaties) until they become inconvenient.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 5:40pm

Why the US is stupid on this one.
IF the US wants to make a law and punish it's own that is it's problem. What the US did however was arrest someone who was doing legal business in a foreign land. It is like going to Saudi Arabia and having them arrest you because you had a beer in the US. The US is stupid and run by jerks at this time. Bush's department of Justice is out of control.

They have no concept of ethical behavior. They can't set any kind of example where the US treats others as they would have them selfs be treated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm not playing with you anymore..., 27 Sep 2007 @ 5:52pm

Do as I say not as I do
Go Antigua....
It's about time other countries start turning 'Free Trade' back on the U.S. 'Free Trade' agreements seem to be weighted in the U.S's favour. - give us access to your markets while we protect and subsidise our own. eg farmer subsidies in the U.S. Not to mention the fact that some of the agreements allow companies to sue countries if the countries environmental laws prevent the said companies from doing what they want. U.S. I think you might say is being 'Hoisted by it's own petard'

http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=188
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeR elated/FreeTrade/Regional.asp
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Sternlight, 27 Sep 2007 @ 7:37pm

Re: Re: Violation
Shame on you for infringing on the sovereignty of the peace-loving Syrian people, who were developing VX and mustard gas purely for peaceful domestic use. You'll be sorry when the Mahdi comes and we're all enjoying our Liberation Hummus.

"But I don't like Hummus".

"Comrade, comes the Liberation, we'll ALL eat Hummus."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Even older guy, 27 Sep 2007 @ 7:45pm

Re: Re: Broken Treaties!!!
Treaties are not suicide pacts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2007 @ 10:07pm

4 numbers, 1 conclusion
EU: ~495 million people
US: ~295 million people
US$/EURO: 1.41
Over the past half decade, the US$ lost more than 7% per year.

Not all US jobs have been outsourced yet, there are still some left at Walmart. Now, shut up and play by the rules.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTR1701, 28 Sep 2007 @ 3:04am

Re: Re: Nah
> some asshole nation dropped atomic
> bombs on their cities

It was actually Japan that was the asshole nation when it started the war with the USA. It's their own fault they got their asses kicked.

Don't start a fight unless you can win it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTR1701, 28 Sep 2007 @ 3:10am

Re: Re: shmengie
> You should lose your citizenship to the
> next illegal Mexican who is proud to be
> here and loves American ideals and history.

Good luck finding one of those. Most of them can't even speak English, let alone give you a rundown on American history. They're only in America for a paycheck (which they promptly send back to Mexico), nothing more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTR1701, 28 Sep 2007 @ 4:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Violation
> > what known terrorist that had killed
> > thousands of US citizens was Saddam
> > harboring?

> Uh...Bin Laden...

Uh... no.

Bin Laden was never in Iraq, nor did Hussein harbor him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DCX2, 28 Sep 2007 @ 9:58am

Re:
The question is should we allow a foreign governing body dictate what our domestic laws are?

When the US signs the treaty to be a part of this foreign governing body, yes, it should dictate our domestic laws. So, you're asking the wrong question. I believe what you intended to ask is "should we allow the treaties that we have signed to dictate what our domestic laws are?" I think you can find the answer in article VI of the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
name, 28 Sep 2007 @ 10:14am

Re:
i think that question was answered when we signed an agreement with these countries. if your not going to play by the rules the dont play at all
[ link to this | view in thread ]
name, 28 Sep 2007 @ 10:16am

Re: 4 numbers, 1 conclusion
US nukes = in ur face

"Now, shut up and play by the rules."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2007 @ 11:18pm

Re: Re: Re: shmengie
"Most of them can't even speak English"

Well, most Mexicans in the US speak English and Spanish, while most US Americans speak only English. It is this lack of education that makes it so easy for US companies to outsource your job in the US to countries where people speak more than one language, comprehend natural sciences including concepts like evolution, respect other people and their property, and aren't so fat around the waist and brain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mscsrrr.stumbleupon.com, (On $100 Billion Fine Get, 29 Sep 2007 @ 1:45am

Would A $100 Billion Fine Get The US To Pay Attent
Can anyone please explain to me why offline casino and gambling are legal but internet casino and gambling are illegal?

Why is online lotto legal but online casino and gambling are illegal?

Above all, why is lotto legal in all the states but gambling in some parts of US by the citizens is illegal?

I think I am too dumb to comprehend the logic behind this conundrum
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous of course, 29 Sep 2007 @ 6:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: shmengie
Yes, it's the highly educated mexican workers
that lure the corporations to send production
line jobs sent south of the border.

Because, large corporations actively seek
workers snapping two widgets together on
a slide line that comprehend the natural
sciences.

Paying them eighty percent lower wages is
just a happy consequence of that concern

You're a pathetic failure as a troll.

Or as we say in America "Grow a brain moran."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Henry, 29 Sep 2007 @ 10:32pm

US vs WTO
Basically, we have to abide by the WTO ruling if we expect other countries to do the same. Because we don't like the decision isn't a reason to ignore it.

BTW - The US isn't the only country that has chosen to ignore WTO decisions when they weren't popular.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTR1701, 30 Sep 2007 @ 8:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: shmengie
> Well, most Mexicans in the US speak English and Spanish

Not in my experience. I can't even order fast food here in Northern Virginia half the time because the person at the counter can't understand me.

> It is this lack of education that makes it so easy for US
> companies to outsource your job in the US

LOL! No, my job is not going to be outsourced anywhere. It can't be. That would violate federal law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]