Administration Ignores Treaties? - Antigua attorney speaks ... WTO case

[intaglio]

From the Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/16/antigua_wto_mendel/

It appears that the ban on internet gambling instituted by the US government has been ruled as in breach of the WTO rules and treaties.

/snip

Antigua brought this case in 2003, primarily as a result of increasing efforts of the United States Department of Justice to prevent Antiguan companies from providing remote gambling and betting and services to consumers in the United States. We had evaluated the legal issues and determined that under the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (the "GATS"), the United States had made an unrestricted commitment to allow the cross-border trade in gambling and betting services from other WTO members, such as Antigua. Thus, the actions by the DOJ to stop the industry amounted to a violation of an international treaty.

and surprise!

/snip

Unfortunately, from the beginning of the case to the current date, the United States has shown no willingness to compromise at all. So, we have tested them at the WTO through its dispute resolution process and have won at every stage. There is enormous and very complicated history here, but basically as the United States would not compromise we had to prosecute our case, which we had assessed as very sound. Through the smoke and chaff, the WTO has consistently said the United States had agreed to allow these services and by prohibiting them, the United States was in violation of the GATS.

The US tried using a defense that said that remote gambling was so evil, bad and immoral that it had to be banned anywhere in the US there was a problem with this

/snip

Further, something that so many people have not realised but this last panel (edit - of panel of the WTO) 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. By leaving states free to have as much intrastate remote gambling as they want, but prohibiting services that cross a border, the federal government cannot possibly say that it prohibits all remote gambling. And, of course, the crossing of a border is, by itself, not a logical basis for discriminating against services. At least not under international law.

I wonder what the "New World Order" conspiricy theorists will say about this?