I think it's time that the site came up with a formal vision of what it hopes that the future holds for online gaming. If this site is going to have a voice that resonates with decision-makers, it needs to have a clearly stated vision of how regulated online gaming would provide a boost to the economy, while providing safeguards against the legitimate concerns that people opposed to online gambling hold.
This can be done. It can be done without calling the other side idiots, zealots, or people so OBSESSED with morality that they're stomping all over the rights of everyone. This site is a player's advocate. The reason players needed advocates was because the offshore industry had many scammy elements at the beginning...in the middle...and even now according to posts currently up in the Mess Hall.
Criminals and scam artists were attracted to the industry and they made their presence felt.
Many online games are scams.
Organized crime leapt at the chance to more efficiently run sports books, and still has ties in the industry. Organized crime uses the funds it wins from gamblers to finance the drug trade, arms trade, and other criminal activities. We know this from recent arrests where bookmakers also had connections to these other pursuits.
We can't pretend these things aren't true while basically going "Waaaaah, waaaah, waaaah" like a baby that had it's rattle taken away.
If a representative of MW went on Hardball with Chris Matthews, or the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, and tried to put forward this line of rhetoric, he would get SPANKED by the host, let alone any guest from the other side.
"terrorism was never really a concern for the online gambling bill's original sponsors."
Of course not, 1997 we were still four years away from being attacked on our own soil. To that point, terrorist attacks were limited to very small events on foreign soil or in foreign waters. Al Qaeda wasn't yet a growing global force with cells all over the planet that where sending money to each other to finance attacks. Of course it wasn't on the minds of the original opponents of online gambling.
"The following year (2002), in a letter on why the Republicans wanted the Democrats to ban online gambling Lawrence Lindsay wrote the following in a letter to Tom Daschle:
'Internet gambling serves as a haven for money laundering and organized crime and, potentially, for international terrorism.'
It was a cheap tactic"
No, it was a responsible tactic given the international growth of Al Qaeda. The use of offshore sportsbooks by a terrorist group hadn't happened yet. And, it still may not have happened to this day. He used the word "potentially." There certainly is the potential for terrorists to use unregulated offshore sportsbooks as a way to transfer money to each other in a way that can't easily be tracked. The Arab world still had a lot to learn about American culture, particularly sports. I remember the reports from journalists that Osama Bid Laden was expecting the US to break apart the way the old Soviet Union did because the "states" would want independence from Bush. If they were thinking that...then comprehending baseball moneylines was surely a few years off. The point is, the POTENTIAL is there for the use of unregulated offshore financial tools to be used as the terrorist organizations became more savvy about the West. This is indisputable. Of course there was the POTENTIAL for this happening. It's a legitimate concern for people fighting terrorism.
"With all due respect to Raymond Baker, his quote to me: "It's the ability to use any form of money laundering that can facilitate terrorists financing, which can parade as some other form of illicit proceeds... is problematic" just doesn't wash."
Of course it washes, how could it not wash? Unregulated offshore financial instruments can easily be used to facilitate terrorism. Jeez!
"Furthermore, it must be noted that the United Kingdom has not banned online gambling, but have actually endorsed it."
The United Kingdom was endorsing REGULATED online gambling run by public companies who would have a much easier time monitoring transactions. Terrorists looking to shuttle finances around are much more likely to pursue unregulated offshore places than they are landlocked places where online gambling is legal. Don't try to make the case that Britain wanted unregulated offshore gambling. They've embraced regulated online gambling. HUGE FREAKING DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
"The UK has had more terrorist attacks in its country's history than the United States has, and recently they had the subway poisoning incident."
I can see Wolf Blitzer scratching his head now. Subway poisoning incident? There was a subway bombing in 2005. A former Russian spy was poisoned with Polonium recently in what looks to be a hit orchestrated by his enemies. I looked on the internet and couldn't find any references to a recent subway poisoning. But, even if there was...having regulated online gaming in your country is not an invitation for terrorists to come attack you. The fact that books are kept, are open, and subject to inspection by shareholders and legal authorities would discourage large scale involvement. Any large scale involvement would certainly send up red flags...particularly from patriotic businessmen who don't want to see their country attacked.
"What does online gambling have to do with terrorism?", just ask the U.S. government."
No, Wolf Blitzer or Chris Matthews would explain that the issue isn't online gambling, it's unregulated offshore financial vehicles. A lot of the crooks running offshore places wouldn't mind taking a commission as money was creatively transferred from one agent to another. Many offshore establishments are of course legitimate businesses. Some aren't. Some are run by Central American interests that would have questionable loyalty when it comes to alerting the US to potential trouble. As the offshore industry evolved in the Caribbean, one could imagine a gradual influx of South American drug money coming into play as well. Without the law, what would the industry have looked like in 2009, 2011? Clean as a whistle?
It is possible to make the case that online gambling, particularly poker and sports wagering....the games that aren't just outright scams like roulette, internet blackjack, and the like...could be regulated online in the US in a way that would address all the concerns.
*It would be a boost to the economy, particularly in the form of taxes collected. States concerned about losing revenue that was currently going to their lotteries, horse tracks, etc...might find that they were making more money with poker and sports betting.
*If it's regulated, it's hard for organized crime or terrorists to launder appreciable sums of money without getting detected. Brick and mortar casinos do have mechanisms in place to at least notice suspected laundering when it happens. Those can be in place here as well.
*If it's regulated, safeguards can be put in place to stop problem gamblers from going overboard. If we're not even allowing the scams like roulette, online blackjack and the like, this isn't as big an issue. Time or deposit limits could be put in place that restrict how much damage a problem gambler can do. Again, the model of brick and mortar casinos could be followed here.
*Safeguards can be put in to make it difficult for children to play as well. That could involve more complicated passwords, more complicated sign up processes, any variety of hurdles that are difficult for a kid to clear, but not that difficult for a motivated adult to clear when first signing up with a place. Man, I had to remember what cars I bought in 1994 when signing up with Neteller a few years back. Think a kid knows when a mortgage was signed? There are ways.
The positives are presented, the concerns are addressed, and it's done quickly in understandable fashion so that people who agree can easily state the case in arguments. Pundits on TV can easily state the case. Opponents who go off on tangents can be exposed because the plan addresses their concerns.
Regulated online poker and sports betting would help the economy, and would have safeguards that discouraged children, gambling addicts, organized crime, and yes, even terrorists from involvement.
We can make this case. We NEED to make this case. Or, WE need to make the case. If not us, who? As MJulian said above, we've spent several articles whining and name calling, and none laying out a vision.
Let's come up with a vision...debated by posters here until we get something that comes close to something workable (not, we have a right to gamble, get the hell out of my business...I don't care if organized crime is taking my money to fund the drug or arms trade...I don't care if scammers are just pocketing my money outright, or promoting games that slowly drain it from my pockets...I just want people to leave me alone! That train left the station. We need a vision that can get passed into law). Then we can make that vision the centerpiece of MW's players advocacy in 2007 and beyond. Here's what we're doing for sports wagerers, we're encouraging a workable solution that fully addresses the concerns of the other side.
Can we try that?
blg  |