RSSThink On-Line Gambling does not affect the Caribbean? Antigua and Barbuda Strike back at US
If you ever thought that money was not flowing offshore with on-line internet gambling, 
think again. The Caribbean is a hot bed for such action. Now Antigua and Barbuda are asking the WTO for the right to sue the United States for 3.4 billion. That is correct, 3.4 BILLION with a “B”!
GENEVA The tiny Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda asked the World Trade Organization on Tuesday for the right to authorize $3.4 billion in commercial sanctions against the United States for its failure to comply with a WTO ruling against its Web gambling restrictions.
Washington acknowledged that its online betting ban was ruled illegal by the WTO, but challenged Antigua’s right to retaliate. The U.S. says it is in the process of rewriting its obligations under a 1994 WTO treaty, removing online gambling from the agreement.
The U.S. also rejected the amount requested by Antigua as “patently excessive.”
“The level sought by Antigua and Barbuda is several times higher than Antigua and Barbuda’s annual gross domestic product of all goods and services,” U.S. trade lawyer Juan Millan told the WTO’s dispute settlement body.
The WTO set up an arbitration panel to rule on the matter.
In March, the WTO ruled that the U.S. had the right to prevent offshore betting, as a means of protecting public order and public morals. But the trade body said it was illegal to target online gambling, without equally applying the rules to American operators offering remote betting on horse and dog racing.
Antigua has been promoting gambling and other kinds of Internet commerce as a way to end the country’s reliance on tourism, which was hurt by a series of hurricanes in the late 1990s.
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
6 Responses to “Think On-Line Gambling does not affect the Caribbean? Antigua and Barbuda Strike back at US”
Leave a Reply
PUHLEEEEZZZZZZ!
No More Gamblimg,Drugs,or Rapes,Please.
Unbelievable! The government is so gung-ho on preventing Americans from CHOOSING to play poker and other games online that they’re willing to renege on our commitments to the WTO. Of course, our government will be back at the WTO soon to press complaints against China.
Many Americans oppose the so-called “ban”. It “passed” the Senate not by a majority vote on its merits, but by being sneaked into the Safe Ports Act, where it was safe from debate and discussion. As a result, reform measures like HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, have already been introduced, and others are sure to follow.
Should America be like England and most of Europe, where citizens are permitted to choose to gamble if they wish to, or should we be like China and Iran, where the Internet is censored? I prefer freedom and limited government myself.
I don’t mean to call anyone names, but I am personally offended by those who wish to take my rights away. First of all, I don’t need the federal government to control my family. Secondly, the power we give the government to do our bidding today is the same power they’ll use against us tomorrow.
The definition you give of a social conservative is really that of any conservative, IMO. A social conservative, as I meant it in my initial post, is one who wishes for a stronger, more powerful federal government to champion legislation of values. An example is Brett Bozell, who wishes the FCC would become an all-powerful media censor. Another is the politicians who wish to ban Internet poker simply because they don’t like it. Also, Focus on the Family has a lot of legislation in mind. IMHO, it’s a shame that our party moved from keeping government small to expanding government. As for voting them out, just look how much they’ve spent over the past six years. We have to take our party back. I hope we can do it in the primaries, but we may have to do it in the general election. The party leadership decided we’ll vote for them no matter what (just look at this amnesty Bush and Kyl tried to force on us). It’s really that simple.
“…the supporters got together and tossed out all the Senate’s time-honored procedures by crafting the bill not in committee but in secret, behind closed doors, and then sought to ram their 800-page bill down the throats of their fellow senators before any of them had a chance to study it.”
This is how the Senate passed the legislation against Internet gambling (which included even poker) last year. Frist sneaked it onto the Safe Port Act, where it was safe from debate (as if the federal government wasn’t big enough already). As a result, the WTO ruled we unfairly restrained trade, which will cost us billions per year in remedies. Also, various legislation has been proposed to restore the citizens’ rights to choose to play cards online. A hearing was held (see it at http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml ) that proved Internet poker can be effectively regulated and taxed. Unfortunately, a few senators wish to continue legislating their ideas on the rest of us, expanding government at the same time.
It’s certainly legitimate to question the government’s idea to crack down on Internet gambling. One can take the approach that it’s something that one does voluntarily, and that clearly many Americans like to do. I know someone who is engaged in this, and he says the odds are better than those in regular casinos.
It’s said that this sort of thing is the province of organized crime, an assertion I can’t prove or disprove. If the idea of gambling is itself the issue, then one might ask what makes state and national lotteries acceptable.
But what I find interesting is that this place is suing the U.S., seeking damages that are obviously outlandish. The Caribbean wants our tourists, or more accurately our tourist dollars. It will present a smiling mask to get them.
Let any challenge emerge, and the smiling mask is dropped and something else appears.
This episode shows the real concerns that prevail there: demand for our money.
I agree with The Engineer that the size and scope of government has to be cut. At the same time, I don’t want criminal cliques in the Caribbean to be taking our money, from tourism or anything else.
So how do we prompt people to do the “right thing” by themselves? We’ve been urging a tourism boycott of Aruba, and it has been successful over the last two years. Aruba whined that that, too, was illegal; well, that’s bogus.
We have no obligation to go there, and clearly the Natalee Holloway case shows that it’s foolish to do so.
This is why we’ve been asking people all along to avoid Aruba of their own accord. We don’t need the government to tell us not to go there, and obviously the powers that run the worlds of hotels, casino gambling, tourism, etc. aren’t going to disrupt their money games to do what’s right.
But we the people can. And have.
I don’t like it whenever the gov takes rights away. Eventually we’ll have nothing.