WTO Again Sides With Antigua Over Online Gambling 429
TechDirt writes "For some time we've been following the ongoing conflict between the US and the island nation of Antigua surrounding internet gambling. Even before the passage of the most recent anti-gambling law, Antigua had gone to the WTO to complain that the US government's actions against online gambling were de facto protectionist measures, and thus violated international trade law. The WTO ended up siding with Antigua, although, quite predictably, the US did nothing to resolve the issue -- in fact, things have only gotten worse. Now the WTO is speaking out again, slamming the US government for its failure to abide by the decision against it. Once again, it seems likely that the US will ignore the decision, although that would give Antigua the right to retaliate. One possibility that's been thrown out there is that Antigua may turn itself into a haven for free music and software and set up some site like allofmp3.com. Of course, the US put pressure on Russia to crack down on that site, as part of the country's admittance into the WTO, but since Antigua is already part of the organization, the US would have no such leverage. Now, the WTO has spoken out again."
Ob (Score:4, Funny)
George, what are you doing? I was only joking!
Somebody... (Score:5, Interesting)
Shut up and take your medicine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-- Frost, Aliens
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Interesting)
on the USA either, UN, WTO, all other "organizations" are powerless and pointless.
tom
It's like the Bush fans who justify his behavior by saying "oh, but Clinton did this stuff too!" Well, when you spend years whining and bitching about how bad the other guy was, you kinda lose the right to use "they did it first" as a defense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
on the USA either, UN, WTO, all other "organizations" are powerless and pointless.
tom"
Oh, okay, so the USA isn't any worse than NK, Iraq, or Iran? That's a stunning endorsement.
We've been in this camp for a long time. When the UN wanted to teach girls about family planning, it was the US and Iran that went to bat against the measure.
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at all stats too, USA is sliding down the lists so fast you wonder what happened. USA has been surpassed in most areas by countries who care about it's citizens and it's businesses. But Americans continue to claim to be #1 even when all stats show otherwise. It must be nice to be so brainwashed and ignorant.
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
You know - the "family first, anti-drugs, small government" republicans? That same party where both the president and VP have DWIs? Where every single candidate in the 2008 race has been divorced at least once? The party that over the past 6 years has increased the size of the government and budget to the largest ever?
Disclaimer: I was a Republican. The above facts are just some of the many reasons I no longer am. The hypocrisy of that party boggles the mind.
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, the role of government in a representative republic shouldn't be to protect people from themselves, either.
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Too true, which is why the framers of your constitution put in a section entitled Limits on Congress [usconstitution.net] that says, amongst other things, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
This provides a nice empirical test of the claim "the US isn't a democracy." So long as Congress does not pass a law like the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which suspends Habeas Corpus for non-citizens [csmonitor.com] the US could plausibly be claimed to not be a democracy. Now that the law has been passed, it is much more difficult to make that claim. Note that the language of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous and says nothing about the citizenship of the people for whom Habeas Corpus may be suspended.
The fact that Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 suggests that they know the voters will reward them despite the unconstitutional nature of the law. That sounds like a democracy to me.
As time passes, the US looks less and less like a democratic republic and more and more like a democratic oligarchy, in which a small clique of the ultra-wealthy ruling class both court and manipulate the unrestrained will of the populace, usually in the name of security of some kind. The Republicans focus on security against drugs and porn and terrorism; the Democrats focus on security against poverty and unemployment and porn (remember Tipper Gore?). This is a far cry from the republic your founders envisioned and to an extent achieved, in which the constitution put limits on the will of the people in the name of liberty.
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:4, Insightful)
As for democratic oligarchy -- that term is an oxymoron. The US continues to be an indirect democracy (representative republic, pretty much the same thing), it's just that the electorate is bought by campaign ads, vote pandering, and wedge issues -- real political discourse is frowned upon. This allows the moneyed interests to dominate the electoral process.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't that a Plutocracy?
Honestly, when your Congressmen are openly bought by lobby groups, you guys should have a really issue with that... Votes in Congress should not be bought by the highest bidder, and it's sad that Congressmen so open are okay with that.
And when your choice is Incumbant Congressional Whore A vs. Challenging Congressional Whore B there isn't a whole hell of a lot any
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else see the similarity with applying this sentiment to violent films or computer games?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easy to forget that most laws are quite reasonable; because they are, we never hear about them, and take them for granted.
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is an alternative way of saying "redirecting them to give their money towards the US government".
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone that stupid deserves to be on the streets.
Wait, if we follow your argument, perhaps a government appointed agent should visit you during sex and make sure you use a condom. After all, there's nothing pathetic about protecting your citizens from contracting a deadly disease from a 5 minute sexual encounter.
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be really nice, if that was what was happening. However, if you live in CT, NV, or a few other states, you can quite happily log into an in-state's casino website & gamble away your life savings. Or you could just go to the OTB website & do so across state lines. Or you can go to your states lottery website & do it.
Nope, look at the reasons the US govt is giving, 'the money supports drug lords', 'the money supports terrorists', 'Online gambling is being blocked because of moral reasons'. The first 2 are bunk because Antigua monitors their gaming establishments very carefully, they are about 30% of the countries GNP. If the last one was true, and it is the reason they formally advanced to WIPO, then they would be obligated to block it within the US as well. WIPO told them that, and they responded by doing nothing internally & passing more international restrictions.
This is not about a moral issue, this is about blocking money moving out of the country. That's protectionism, and it's blocked by all the treaties we've signed - we've screamed in the past on exactly the same points, so it's perfectly alright to call the US govt a bunch of hypocrites, because they provably are. That's not anti-US, it's fact. I know it's hard to believe, but even in this day & age, sometimes we still get to say the Emperor has no clothes without a trip to Gitmo.
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, that's right, *nowhere*!
The government's job is not to protect us from ourselves. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government is enforcing a monopoly for US based companies to
make large profits from people gambling away thier mortgage/foof/rent
money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They do. Alcohol is controlled and regulated by the government. There are rules in place to reduce the harm done and sanctions can be imposed on manufacturers, outlets and importers who break these rules.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look what happened when they did that..!
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Ha ha ha ha ha! Looks like you bought the story. The controls are simply to make sure that every single bottle of booze is TAXED. They don't give a shit about you. If they did, it would be treated just like a controlled medication (eg opioids) - some authority has to sign so you can get it, you only get small doses at a time, and special measures are in place to make sure you don't go "shopping" to "stock up". Even in this case the controls are to prevent someone becoming a supplier of opioids rather than abusing them.
You can walk into any liquor store and buy all the booze you want - enough to kill yourself many times over. So long as it's taxed. Same deal with tobacco. And gambling must be done in specific places, so the government can keep its eye on the books to make sure the tax is paid.
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shut up and take your medicine (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The WTO cares because one of Antigua's chief exports is gambling. Since we're a member of the WTO we've agreed to not apply protectionist measures to other WTO countries. Banning over-seas gambling is a de facto protectionist measure.
The WTO is not particularly concerned with human rights violations, only the free flow of goods and services between its member countries.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm.... (Score:2, Interesting)
This also touches on broader "moral issues". If a country doesn't want something to come in because it objects on moral grounds, who is another country to sue about it? It's like Columbia complaining to the WTO that we ban cocaine.
(Some may argue that regular gambling is legal in parts of the US, but I think online gambling falls into a different realm. Because of the ease of access, it could lead to an m
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a question of morality. It's just trendy to hate the US right now.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Despite whatever misguided beliefs you may have, America has always been highly respected and loved by people all over the world. Whether you were from France, Germany, Japan or anywhere else, people looked toward America as an example for the rest of the world. A place people wanted to be. A country of hope for those who had none and a people that people loved. Perhaps not perfect, but still a place that gave hope to even those who loved their own countries.
This was illustrated by the response immediately after 9/11. Remember "We All Today are USA"? Remember people in every city on the planet marching, crying, holding vigils and saying they love America and that the attacks broke their hearts?
For a moment in time, we held the sympathy of a world that looked to us. And then we blew it. Some people hate America, including some Americans. For others around the world (and in America), it's not so much hate as disappointment. I have talked to countless people from every walk of life around the planet and one thing is consistent. They love Americans and they loved the America that gave them hope. That stood for ideals, cared about peace and freedom and being both an example to and a beacon for other free civilizations world-wide. Just because they criticize the country doesn't mean they hate it. It means they are frustrated with it. They are frustrated that the one great example of everything that appealed to them has turned on its head.
Rather than playing the Fox News "they hate our freedom and our baby jebus!" card that is so easy for the ignorant, self-involved idiots to play, try considering that just maybe we lost the sympathy, affection and respect of the entire world on our own watch and of our own accord. If we want to be able to travel the globe and enjoy the respect and fascination people once had for an American abroad, we need to reconsider our actions past and our decisions future. You can't lumber around the playground like a clumsy bully and simultaneously, shouting that you don't care what anyone else thinks and treating everyone else in the world community as a lesser human being by their nationality and simultaneously expect to be seen as a respectable victim standing up for themselves.
Part of being a mature country that provides world-wide leadership means giving great consideration to actions yet taken and honest introspective review of those already performed. Let's do a little less flag-waving and "put a boot in their ass" Toby Kieth bullshit and a little more growing up. I, for one, resent that those much older than myself have stolen the respect and admiration that being an American used to deserve and that my generation will probably not be alive by the time we manage to regain that respect.
ok, some realism: (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true. First of all, the respect and love has changed (going up and down) throughout the history of the USA, and secondly, the respect and love has never been universal 'all over the world'. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a time where the USA wasn't hated or disrespected by at least *some* part of the world.
And even in the best of times, I'm not sure one could say any population of a foreign country really 'loved' americans. Of course, that would depend on your interpretation of 'love'; if you mean by that a general 'goodwill' or 'liking' it would be more correct then something like 'adoring'.
"This was illustrated by the response immediately after 9/11. Remember "We All Today are USA"? Remember people in every city on the planet marching, crying, holding vigils and saying they love America and that the attacks broke their hearts?"
No, I don't remember that. First of all, I doubt it was in 'every city on the planet' - that reeks hyperbole, actually. Secondly, in some cities, they were marching and crying allright, but rather of joy that the USA got hit. This s particular the case in a lot of cities in the Middle East, where the USA has been seen as an imperialistic agressor since the last decade.
There was a lot of sympathy in Europe and other countries, however. But that sympathy shouldn't be construed as 'love for america and amercans', but rather sympathy for the thousands of victims of such a brutal act, regardless of their country of origin.
"For a moment in time, we held the sympathy of a world that looked to us. And then we blew it."
True.
"Some people hate America, including some Americans."
Well, more correct would be to say that *a lot* of people hate americans. And even more *dislike* America, or at least its current government (and by extension sometimes half of its population). You find the former more with middle-east countries, but the latter is currently wide spread, even among traditional allies like the europeans.
"They love Americans and they loved the America that gave them hope. That stood for ideals, cared about peace and freedom and being both an example to and a beacon for other free civilizations world-wide.[snip]"
I think you're being way off here, in an over-optimistic, self-indulgent way. I would rather say that some parts of the world, especially Europe, was considerable more sympathetic towards the USA (the 'love' and 'hope' thing is largely hyperbole, sorry) after WW2. In fact, Europeans had a reasonable amount of sympathy for the USA under the Clinton-administration; I can't remember the same anti-amercanism-feelings back then (at least not to the huge degree it has today), and it's not like it's THAT long ago.
"Just because they criticize the country doesn't mean they hate it."
Well, large parts of middle-east populations do actually hate the country. Western countries are more moderate, but there too (at least nowadays) large parts hate the bush-government, and to an extension, part of the populace too (since half voted for bush, after all). Though I think 'despise' would be a better term than 'hate' where European feelings are concerned.
"try considering that just maybe we lost the sympathy, affection and respect of the entire world on our own watch and of our own accord"
True.
"Let's do a little less flag-waving[]"
Good idea. But note that your own post isn't completely void of such (slightly veiled) flag-waving.
I think, all by all, you did try to give an honest post about your own people/country, without trying to blame everyone else but the USA. In that respect, you are to be applauded, and way more sincere than a lot of other USA-posters around here.
That said, you still have some of that weird, self-flattering, narcistic worldview about the world and the place of the USA in it. I think that's largely due
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Jesus, lose the fucking ego. "Awe"?!? At what, exactly, "our freedoms"?
I'm amazed that you've managed to take your anecdotes ("countless" as they are), and managed to extrapolate things into logical absolutes, "every city" having "We Are All Today USA" days? (Huh, as a former citizen of another "Coalition Of The Willing" country, Australia, I can guarantee you that none of our capital cities had any su
My butt (Score:4, Interesting)
The crux of the issue here, is that unlike in the EU where local moral and religious laws get some protection from EU decisions, the WTO frowns on morality-based protectionism. As well they should. What business is it of our government to dictate what someone can do with their money? Gambling restrictions in this country are sold as religion-based. A good portion of Christians think that gambling is immoral. The other portion thinks that gambling is a waste of money and disproportionatly affects the poor. I suspect the real reason is because the state likes having a monopoly on gaming (state lotteries) and doesn't want the free market driving their payout percentages.
Then again, I'm not your "average" Slashdotter. Even though I AM an economist, the internet is full of people who read Atlas Shrugged and think they have a degree from Wharton or something. So I may be wrong about your "average Slashdot user."
Re:My butt (Score:5, Insightful)
The US gambling laws are economic protectionism hidden behind a thin veil of moralism and that's what the WTO is objecting to.
If they still want to ban gambling then they need ban it for everyone and remove the exceptions for US businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the EU does not want GM food, although for a variety of reasons: for some people its health and safety, for some its morality, and for others its economics or the environment. EU politicians risk losing their seat if they vote for it, yet the US is forcing the WTO, at the US's behest, to make us take food we dont want to eat, by not allowing us to know which fo
Re: (Score:2)
Do you work for Microsoft?
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you, but instead of the word, "irony", I would use "hypocrisy".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no logic involved here. The average slashdot user is anti-WTO unless they find *against* the US. Then suddenly everybody loves the WTO.
It's not a question of morality. It's just trendy to hate the US right now.
Projecting your own failings onto others, eh? It seems pretty trendy on /. these days to hallucinate some huge anti-American bias, and there's certainly no morality or logic involved in that attitude. Reality check: the US government is acting like a dick and people are calling us on it.
Do you actually have a logical, ethical defense of the US's behavior, or are you just another mindless drone (excuse me, I mean 'typical slashdotter')?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The report also noted that
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
But you do let people gamble in American casinos in Vegas, Atlantic City (at times!) and certain native American reservations? Why not online? Protectionism, see?
It's like Columbia complaining to the WTO that we ban cocaine.
No it's not. Cocaine is illegal in both the US and Colombia. Gambling is legal in parts of the US and in Antigua. The US created a law to make "online" gambling illegal, but no one goes to jail for going to Vegas even if gambling is illegal in their state. Therefore Antigua complains. Especially since most of their business came from the US. That's what trade organizations are all about, really.
but I think online gambling falls into a different realm. Because of the ease of access, it could lead to an major increase in gambling.
Thank God that we have you as our self-appointed Censor!
Yes some people have gambling problems, and can ruin their lives (and their family) through gambling. However not everyone has this problem. Most people can keep to the limits they establish themselves.
You suggest a prohibition type scenario. If you look around you perhaps you might understand what happens when government prohibits something that the people want. The people do it ANYWAY. Example - alchol in the 20's. Drugs today. Prohibition enables organized crime to get rich from the public vice. It does not stop the vice.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, the NA reservations don't count. It's a very complicated arrangement, but they are semi-autonomous. They technically are bound by certain restrictions, but for the most part they are self governing. So they are neither truly external like Antigua, nor internal like Atlantic City or Las Vegas.
But the point stands, they are blocking off-shore gambling on moral grounds wh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand your point. I mean, historically - this arrangement lasts for as long as the US government wants it to last.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice random conclusion. Why not just say it's because the space aliens that run our country don't allow it? Gambling is and ALWAYS has be ILLEGAL in about 40 of the 50 states. There are 3 states that don't allow any form of gambling, not lottery, no horses, no dogs. Because the US is a REPUBLIC, with a federal government which is traditionally run
Re: (Score:2)
The US Govt. are simply claiming it's a moral thing, to sell you shit wrapped up in Christmas paper. They are quite happy to take the money from the gambling they do have, as long as they can control it and get revenue from it.
As long as its US Government approved, its ok. Which is wrong, and protectionist.
State lotteries and horse racing (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called Trade Agreements. I doesn't matter what the U.S. wants. U.S. laws can be overridden if they violate Trade Agreements. Remember the Steel Tariffs fiasco back in 2002 - 2003. The Bush administration levied tariffs on imported steel to help the U.S. Steel industry. Problem was this violated trade agreements the U.S. had with various countries. The WTO would have fined the U.S. had the U.S. not dropped the tariffs.
The WTO is a very scary organization, wh
Re: (Score:2)
Becasue you do. There is lots of online, remote gambling allowed in the US. And the govt gets a nice little fee for each bet placed. They DONT get the fee for each bet placed in Antigua. So they whine and cry and declare it a 'moral issue'. Can't have it both ways. Either shut down las vegas and every OTB parlor in NJ , or shut the hell up.
JON
Re: (Score:2)
How can the US be slammed for protectionism when we don't let anyone in the US to do online gambling?
This also touches on broader "moral issues". If a country doesn't want something to come in because it objects on moral grounds, who is another country to sue about it? It's like Columbia complaining to the WTO that we ban cocaine.
(Some may argue that regular gambling is legal in parts of the US, but I think online gambling falls into a different realm. Because of the ease of access, it could lead to an
Rules are for others (Score:5, Insightful)
B0rked link (Score:2)
Great news for ThePirateBay. (Score:2)
What a hypocrite the US is! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Other Americans I know are sick of the whole thing. Unfortunately, they have no say in the matter. American politicians are second to none in manipulating the system to get what they want. Throw the mob enough bones and they'll be happy; that's the democratic principle.
Re: (Score:2)
So the US should bomb their friends and shut down the industries they support, instead? Great, who should we start with?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What a shocker (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The rule of whose law? (Score:2)
So when you talk about the rule of law, whose law is it that you are talking about? And why should I give a token bit of respect to an organization like the WTO to whom I have never elected any representatives, and seems to do far more h
Re: (Score:2)
As an American, this attitude alone is disturbing as I see basic fundamental laws and constitutional rights being thrown out the window on the premise that some nebulous "international law" overrides what my elected representatives have been worked on to create legislation.
It isn't nebulous at all. International law is a mesh of treaties, agreements, and voluntary organizations, which the US has entered willingly and often helped build. Holding to international law means honoring those agreements.
As an American, I thought honesty and keeping your promises were American values. That you seem to disagree makes me sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly I wouldn't say that post-Katrina has shown the ability or willingness of the federal system to get things sorted quickly or effectively - but thats by the by...
Secondly I partly agree with your point on sovereignty, you didn't elect them but you did have a say in your government - so they should take primacy. But this point makes it hard to substantiate an argument against North Korea or Iran having nuclear weapons, the people want them a
i need to tweak the anti-americanism here (Score:3, Insightful)
however, anyone who thinks the usa is special does need a comeuppance: the usa is just as hypocritical as china or russia or india or the majority of every other country in the world. at the same time, that observation is a double edged sword: the usa is no better, and NO WORSE, than these countries. seriously, find a crime the usa does, and tell me the majority of other countries in the world aren't guilty of the same thing
so the anti-americanism needs to be tweaked: the usa is not special and good, so if you thought it was, you need a spanking. at the same time, all the rabid anti-usa types need to check themselves if they think the usa deserves special prosecution for crimes every country is guilty of. all that needs to change is that the rabid patriotic americans need to wake up and admit they are wrong... the rabid anti-americans are STILL wrong, and always have been wrong
the only people with any valid opinion of the usa are those who do not especially love the usa, nor especially hate it. the usa does evil, the usa does good. much like every other country in the world. this balanced attitude is the only valid opinion. any other opinion is partisan propaganda, brain dead and unfair, whether anti-usa, or pro-usa
the usa is not special. not especially good, and not especially evil, either. listen up, braindead partisans
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily on topic, but an important counterpoint to your generic statements, I feel.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But you are still quite right, in that we actually do need to weigh the US on the same scale as other nations. It would jus
yes, 100% agreed (Score:2)
no, the usa does both evil in good in this world. that dispels all of the anti-americna bullshit, AND it dispels all of the pro-americna bullshit
anyone with some sort of special love for the usa is flat out stupid and blind. anyone with some sort of hatred for the usa is equally stupid and blind
those who see
world has much to fear from american nationalism (Score:5, Insightful)
and much to fear form chinese imperialism
and much to fear from russian colonialism
and much to fear from european patriotism
and much to fear form indian chauvanism
etc.
all of these things. not just the americans. not just the arabs
our only saving grace in this world is you and me, seriously: those who see our problems as human problems, not japanese/ pakistani/ indonesian/ brazilian/ etc. problems
that's the challenge of this 21st century: the defeat of nationalistic hubris/ tribal pride, the emergence of universally accepted standards of HUMAN brotherhood
you and i know are shared humanity is more important than the country on our passports. unfortunately, too many in this world think their national/ racial/ tribal allegience is more important than their simple shared human allegiance
the challenge of the 21st century is the defeat of such people
Re:i need to tweak the anti-americanism here (Score:4, Insightful)
Any successful executive speaks to his electoral power base, but typically speeches high profile enough to be heard outside the country are moderated to sound at least moderately reasonable. That the current sitting president and his staff feel comfortable using terminology you quote, which is actively alienating to citizens of allies, let alone disinterested countries, is telling of the strong current of isolationism which has defined the United States foreign policy for many decades.
I see no force of change which is capable of altering a society and political landscape this inwardly focused, and this vast, short of a complete and obvious loss of preeminence in global standing. Of course, the country is on track for this, but it is taking a while.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, with one exception ... it has been the US pushing to have things like the WTO and expanded trade to get access to markets. They've also been forcing their trading partners to adopt their copyright laws so that US interests are protected world-wide.
However, when it comes to reciprocal obligations that they expect ev
take all of those crimes (Score:3, Insightful)
or russia
why does the things the usa does stand out as especially egregious? i see the same level of stink and hypocrisy and arrogance and evil in all 3 countries. so why aren't you hating russia or china?
if, however, you have "fallen out of love" with the usa, well ok then. just be balanced when you assess the crimes of the usa against the crimes of other countries. i think you'll find the usa does wrong to the same degree as the majority of other countries. therefore, it
Same as our Softwood lumber (Score:5, Interesting)
These fines have added up to 2 billion dollars. We had gone repeatedly to the WTO about the issue, and they said that we were in the right, and that the US must gives our money back. This has been going over 10 years.
The US knows that it is in the wrong. However they simply won't pay the fine.
So forget about anyone else getting any rulings through the WTO.
Re:Same as our Softwood lumber (Score:4, Informative)
Googled for this out of interest.
Do you have a more recent story? Because this one from last year contradicts you.
Re:Same as our Softwood lumber (Score:5, Informative)
"6.2 We therefore consider that the United States has implemented the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB in US - Softwood Lumber V, to bring its measure into conformity with its
obligations under the AD Agreement.
6.3 Having found that the United States did not act inconsistently with its obligations under the
asserted WTO Agreements, we consider that no recommendation under Article 19.1 of the DSU is
necessary, and we make none."
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/dispute-en.a
Final settlement documented here:
http://w01.international.gc.ca/MinPub/Publication
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, wasn't that resolved whereby they kept 20% of "theft"*?
* Remember, illegal tariff aren't quite theft. Us Canucks shouldn't abuse that word, no matter what the Mafiaa does.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the US has to smarten up real fast about this or they might end up getting
Tenth Amendment (Score:2)
In the United States, gambling is regulated by the states. Some states (Nevada) have gambling everywhere. Some states have it at select locations. Some states prohibit it. Allowing Internet gambling essentially puts a casino in every household and overrides the ability of states to regulate gambling. Within the US, foreign treaties do not take
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzzt! Wrong again (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a FEDERAL anti-gambling law.
While you can argue that the law itself is unconstitutional (which IMO it is), you can't argue 10th amendment here.
IMO this law should never have been passed in the first place. Like you said, it's a state matter. Of course they're lumping this all under the "internet gambling is inter-state commerce" category, but this is bullshit. The commerce is not inter-state, it's inter-national.
According to the constitution, IMO the fed only has the authority to ban internet gamb
did anyone notice the broken link? (Score:2)
- jonathan.
Re: (Score:2)
Divi Divi Trees and Cactus (Score:2)
Instead of trying to crush Antigua's efforts to maintain and expand their economy I think they should be lauded for their ingenuity. This country is not crying out for a hand out, they are relieving gamblers of their funds. Anyone who has spent any time around the gambling public
Re: (Score:2)
Disband WTO (Score:2)
Why fight evolution? (Score:2)
I would rather open up gambling and free the hospitals from having to treat all comers whether or not they can pay for care. If we free people
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Some fail it at April Fools (Score:2, Insightful)
That was an April Fool's joke, I thought... Slashdot takes 4/1 fairly far every year ;)
Yeah, maybe I'm pretty nerdy,but when the Slashdotit ratings were coming up as Avagadro's number and Faraday's constant (not to mention Jenny 867-5309), it was pretty clearly a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
People take this shit way too seriously.
Really? Tell that to the former neteller execs (Score:3)
I'd say that it's more than just regulation of US banking. Which is beside the point, because even if it was a restriction from say, disallowing any payment to an online ham-merchant from a US bank, it's still an issue of international trade if the government is using it to block German ham merchants.