What Does Online Gambling Have to Do with Terrorism?...By Hartley Henderson

[blogguy]

Gary Kaplan, not Jay Cohen...

I didn't say "purposely." I would assume they weren't on purpose. You weren't purposely inventing a subway poisoning that didn't exist. You mis-remembered and didn't double check. You didn't purposedly say that there was no evidence organized crime was involved in gambling. You weren't aware.

Your quote from the earlier post:

"I have yet to see the government give any proof that organized crime is involved in online gambling. They make comments like that and just expect people to believe it. So far they have arrested David Carruthers, Peter Dicks, Jay Cohen, John Lefevre and Stephen Lawrence. Which of those is in organized crime? "

A convicted mob bookmaker started BOS, and was 44% owner when it went public. Many of the readers here know that already. So, writing a sentence that says the government hasn't provided proof that organized crime is involved in internet gambling and just wants people to believe it kind of ignores the fact THAT WE ALREADY KNOW THAT IT'S HAPPENING.

Regarding Carruthers and your bakery example, if organized crime hires you to run a business, and the proceeds from that business are used for nefarious acts, I'm pretty sure you're involved in organized crime. You're not at the centerpiece. How can you not be involved?

BOS shared office space with known mafia companies in Costa Rica. Does this suggest a lack of involvement to you? Carruthers knew who was hiring him. As DG pointed out, investors should have known who was behind the company when it went public. How can we give Carruthers a pass?

You said:
"I never said that organized crime has never been involved in online gambling. Don't put words in my mouth."

After saying:
"I have yet to see the government give any proof that organized crime is involved in online gambling"

Then you said:
What I said is that the people the U.S. government has arrested were not involved in organized crime

That's not exactly what you said, but it may have been what you meant. Why is government proof an issue when the Kaplan/BOS story is so old? We already know that there was mob involvment.

Why is it this site's job to convince voters or decision-makers of anything? It's not the job. It would be something we could pursue. I may have misunderstood what the phrase "players advocate" meant here. I do think devising a possible solution and getting it into the mainstream mindset would help the situation. I don't think constantly whining about how horrible the goverment is helps at all. To me, that's what the series of articles has been. When my wife complains that there's a spider on the floor, and keeps complaining about it...I say "Jeez, kill it and throw it away, I'm trying to write here." Solve the problem, don't just keep complaining about the problem.

One possible route is to pursue regulation. Another is DG's rout to pursue repealing the UIGEA. We can work toward figuring out what makes the most sense, or has the best chance of working even if it doesn't make the most sense, lol.

Count Zero may have a route in mind as well. Hoping to hear his plan as well...

It's not this site's job...but the Major did state when he was hiring writers something along the lines of wanting to influence the debate on the issue, or at least providing coverage on the hypocrisy and rhetoric of the anti-gambling side. Mis-stating what they believe, name calling, ignoring any valid points they might be making, and leaving out obvious stuff about mob involvement in the industry doesn't serve the site in my opinion.

Debates in the spirit of the last few posts by DG does serve the site in my opnion...

[blogguy]

DG, I think my only question about your post would be whether or not there's a way to encourage the WTO to do that face-slap thing you mentioned. To me, that sounds like a plan of attack that's hoping something happens that's not going to happen. Not sure that really moves us anywhere beyond where we are right now...and people aren't satisfied with where we are right now.

Might the next administration be more open to what the WTO has been trying to make happen? We might be able to find a bridge there that assists the industry.

I guess the possibilities line up this way:
*Working toward getting back to the prior system that may have had it's flaws but had so many strong points that we liked it.

*Working towards a British style regulation, which means we have to deal more specifically with the concerns of what the other side would be saying in a referendum. You don't have to deal with those issues of problem gambling, underage gambling, etc....if it's unregulated offshore. The "it's your own darn fault of your kid is betting" theme works very well in that prior set-up. I think working towards regulation would mean dealing with those concerns more directly.

I guess that's how I see the fork in the road now. Maybe everyone can debate which is the more logical path to follow, or the one most likely to get us to where we'd like to be...

[Hartley]

Debates in the spirit of the last few posts by DG does serve the site in my opnion...

Why don't you just buy the damn site blogguy and then you can check every single word of every single post by everyone and critique and correct it. I assume you were the captain of your debating team or something. Better yet why not post similar articles and let us critique your work.

All my stories are well researched - in fact I received commendations from some people in the industry on a few of my stories - particularly the last one on neteller and the one on why is the u.s.a. politics based on religion - I'd be more than happy to share all the emails with you.

I really resent your implications. I don't attack you in your articles. Fwiw, this started out as a good debate but you have turned it personal suggesting I don't research my material, that I make stuff up, that I resort to name calling etc. I know for a fact that isn't true.

For some reason the part about organized crime has really got your goat and I'm not sure why. I reread my articles to see if I posted something factually incorrect about organized crime and I can't find one instance where I even mentioned it. In your last article you stated that you received a PM about something so you chose to make it an article since the explanation was lengthy.

Minnow made a post asking why all of a sudden terrorism is being talked about with relation to online gambling when all the old arguments were "click the mouse and lose the house" etc. I tried to address her question (which I received from others) and stated MY OPINION that terrorism has conveniently become a buzz phrase only after 9-11 because prior to that the government couldn't sell their agenda. In better words few Americans and more importantly people in Congress were buying the argument that gambling had to be banned because of underage betting, addiction etc. so the current government realized "hey if we can scare the shit out of Americans by convincing them that there lives are at risk unless they agree to the ban on online gambling then we can get our way." It worked with the constant raising and lowering of terrorism threats - who will ever forget it going to code orange every time the government was coming under attack for the war in Iraq?

That's an opinion. As for organized crime it is MY OPINION that the government hasn't given enough proof that organized crime is a concern with online wagering to justify banning it on that basis. Had they arrested people connected to online wagering rather than Jay Cohen, David Carruthers, Peter Dicks, their concern would hold more water. Whether organized crime is involved in online wagering is irrelevant because they have shown by actions that this isn't the reason they want it banned, it's just an excuse. Is it a legitimate excuse? Maybe, but prove it. And more importantly prove that terrorism is a real concern with online wagering. Don't say there is a possibility, but rather demonstrate methods by which terrorists have or can use online gambling to wage more attacks against the United States.

[Rogthedodger]

Guys,

We need a moratorium on the MW writers going at it. I've been working 12-14 days the last few days with these conf games and I'm sorry I haven't stepped in to mediate. I want all interested parties to take tonight and tommorrow off to think about their positions and then I'll help out this situation. We're all gentlemen here, please refrain from any further rhetoric and hyperbole and maybe we can come to a solution starting Monday.

Please don't make me lock this thread, we have good debate in here for the most part.

[stevo]

I agree nothing really can be gained from here. Lets heed rog's advice and cool off a few days.


Myself and Rog are here for interested parties.

[detroitdennis]

what ever the US doesnt benefit from they call it terrorism

[Mjulian]

Blogguy, ignore Count Zero. Really, the guy virtually advocates a fvcking revolution so he can get high and get down, which, in reality, he is able to do anyway. Guess he's a square and can't stand the thought that he's breaking the law.



MW's Count Zero imploring the oppressed droves of the Blue State elite:

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me moneylines and bong hits or give me death!"

[alysheba88]

Originally Posted by Minnow

Thanks Hartley. I wanted to avoid sending the thread with your last article into tangent territory, and so started a seperate thread asking about money laundering.

It seems as though using terrorism and funding terrorism as an exscuse for making it difficult for people to fund gambling accounts is just too good a scare tactic to pass on. I assume it will be a buzzphrase not just while this administration is in power, but anytime the government wishes to step on personal freedoms in the future as well.

Still defending Bush every chance you get huh? Everyone does it? Kneejerk reaction is to blindly support Bush (and also rant against why these threads are in the main forum)

[alysheba88]

Originally Posted by blogguy

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

Have you ever read anything about the mob's influence on the stock market and certain brokerage shops?

[alysheba88]

Originally Posted by drunkguy

ok, everyone who wants online gambling regulated please raise your hand



seeing none, that brings us to the crux of the problem

who wants the U.S. govt to regulate it? Certainly not the bookmakers. They know they will be subject to all kinds of fees, regulations, and taxes. Certainly not the players either. There is nothing like the government throwing a nice little tax wedge in there to kill the profitability on both sides of the counter.

If the U.S. government gets involved, say goodbye to reduced juice. Say goodbye to deposit bonuses. Say goodbye to free deposits and withdrawals. Just not going to be possible anymore. Just not gonna happen with govt taking 30% or more from everyone involved.

And what's the trade-off? To avoid prosecution? I am not going to be prosecuted for placing bets so I really don't give a shit about legal action. For financial safety? Maybe a decent reason but I have been betting offshore for 10 years and have yet to be stiffed one cent. Yes, some of that is definitely luck since some books going under really couldn't be forseen, but nonetheless that is not really that compelling of a reason for me to want the government to come in and muck everything up.

I would not be surprised if one of the first steps in regulation was to create databases of every bet placed, for tax purposes and to identify "problem gamblers". Actually, the first act would be implementing a "sin tax" on winnings. Are these the things we really want to be pushing for? Because the govt is going to have a heavy hand if they get involved.

A U.S.-government regulated environment is not really a great situation and I'm not sure that's what we should be advocating. The industry was in quite good shape before the Carruthers arrest. We should be trying to get UIGEA repealed and that's probably the most government action we should be hoping for. Keeping lawmakers out of the industry is likely in everyone's best interest.





That is their own fault. It wasn't exactly top secret information. Maybe 10 years ago you could have used that excuse, but when BOS went public you could have typed "Gary Kaplan" into Google and I bet something about warrants and stateside bookmaking would be the first result you got. Investment bankers go over these companies with a fine-tooth comb and there is no doubt people were aware of the facts but chose to ignore them.

I believe those who run WSEX are on record for regulation

[Minnow]

Originally Posted by alysheba88

Still defending Bush every chance you get huh? Everyone does it? Kneejerk reaction is to blindly support Bush (and also rant against why these threads are in the main forum)

WTF are you talking about?

[alysheba88]

Originally Posted by Minnow

WTF are you talking about?

LOL, sorry about that. Meant to quote one of MJulian's posts. Sorry. MJulian is the Bush man.

[alysheba88]

Originally Posted by Mjulian

What Does Online Gambling Have to Do with Terrorism?...




Slow week? What is this, the fifth, the sixth article that regurgitates the same basic premise (The US sucks, Bush sucks, Republicans suck, Politicians suck, Christians suck, Southerners suck, Red staters suck, etc.)?

Really, so you spend, what, 5,000 words answering a rhetorical question?

Here's a newsflash: GOVERNMENTS SUCK.

My advice to you Hart, MOVE TO CANADA.

This was the one I meant to address. What is unaddressed here is Online gaming thrived in the US under Clinton. To say that all govts suck and leave it at that is absurd. To ignore the political slant of the anti-gaming folks is lunacy

[skilled27]

Originally Posted by alysheba88

This was the one I meant to address. What is unaddressed here is Online gaming thrived in the US under Clinton. To say that all govts suck and leave it at that is absurd. To ignore the political slant of the anti-gaming folks is lunacy

The online gambling legislation really doesn't have much if anything to do with president Bush. He signed it but he would have signed it if it was pro-gambling. He was going to sign the port security bill no matter what was attached to it. Rightfully so. Blame the people that got it attached not Bush.

[alysheba88]

Yeah I know Bush isnt to blame for anything. Been hearing that for too long

[Mjulian]

Aly, ask JC how thriving the industry was under Clinton.

Furthermore, it's already established that I am a lunatic so what's your point?

[Mjulian]

...and furthermore, my dear friend, just what in that quote of mine indicates that I am a "Bush" man? Does my tiring of redundant Hartley anti-American gibberish mark me as a "Bush" man?

And by the way, Hartman, I caught your "unfactual"...lol.

[Uncle B]

this is why i hate seeing political 'discussions' on these forums.

the levels some people will sink to attack anyone who might dare to actually voice an opposing view to theirs, is just pathetic to me.

you whine and bitch about how our 'freedoms' are being taken away, yet, bash and insult people for giving an opinion on something..

fuckin hypocrits... i guess freedom of speech and freedom of expession aren't much of a concern.


do you people really want an entire forum of nothing but identical viewpoints?

sounds like a robot farm to me.. would bore me fucking senseless.


Imo, the debating and conflicting opinions given at the very beginning, were interesting... It was cool seeing both sides of the issues hashed out discussed..

It's a shame, imo, that it had to evolve into nothing but an insult tossing bash fest...But, it seems that how these all turn out.


Funny thing is, this shit usually has the effect on me of, "well, i did actaully agree with so and so in the beginning, but, now that he's shown himself to be nothing but an arrogant prick, incapable of intelligent debate, there is no way i am going to take his side in the discussion."..


pretty much the same with most politicians i guess.

[alysheba88]

Originally Posted by Uncle B

this is why i hate seeing political 'discussions' on these forums.

the levels some people will sink to attack anyone who might dare to actually voice an opposing view to theirs, is just pathetic to me.

you whine and bitch about how our 'freedoms' are being taken away, yet, bash and insult people for giving an opinion on something..

fuckin hypocrits... i guess freedom of speech and freedom of expession aren't much of a concern.


do you people really want an entire forum of nothing but identical viewpoints?

sounds like a robot farm to me.. would bore me fucking senseless.


Imo, the debating and conflicting opinions given at the very beginning, were interesting... It was cool seeing both sides of the issues hashed out discussed..

It's a shame, imo, that it had to evolve into nothing but an insult tossing bash fest...But, it seems that how these all turn out.


Funny thing is, this shit usually has the effect on me of, "well, i did actaully agree with so and so in the beginning, but, now that he's shown himself to be nothing but an arrogant prick, incapable of intelligent debate, there is no way i am going to take his side in the discussion."..


pretty much the same with most politicians i guess.

People are expressing dissenting opinions here unless I am missing something. So whats the problem? You are honestly going to equate taking away freedoms with disagreeing with someone? Or is only certain disagreement allowed?

Hartley posted something and it has gotten mixed reaction. Its proven exactly the opposite of what you are saying. That there isnt one opinion or side, and that there is disagreement.

The freedom of speech comment is baffling. Who is saying someone cant express their opinion?