U.K. Gambling CEO Arrested at U.S. Airport

Details are still sketchy, but it looks as if David Carruthers, a U.K. citizen and CEO of the U.K.-incorporated, U.K.-traded public company BetOnSports.com, has been detained at a Fort Worth airport while switching flights between the U.K. and Costa Rica. He will now apparently be charged in the U.S. for running a company that’s legal in just about every Western country except America.  Reuters reports:

The U.S. Department of Justice said on Monday that BetOnSports was among 11 individuals and four corporations facing various charges of racketeering, conspiracy and fraud.

The founder of BetOnSports, Gary Kaplan, 47, was also charged with 20 felony violations, and a warrant has been issued for his arrest, the Department of Justice added.

“BetOnSports.com and other gambling Web sites operated by Gary Kaplan and his co-defendants offered gamblers in the United States illegal wagering on professional and college football and basketball,” said a copy of the indictment seen by Reuters.

It’s probably worth noting that Carruthers is an outspoken advocate for legalizing online gambling in the U.S. He recently debated Rep. Jim Leach on the issue in the Wall Street Journal. If Carruthers is being held solely because U.S. customers illegally do business with his legal, U.K.-based company, that’s disturbing enough.

But things could get even more interesting.

Carruthers was careless enough to have step foot on U.S. soil, even if only to switch planes. But as the Voluntary Trade Council’s Skip Oliva explains, the U.S. and the U.K. have also entered into some curious extradition treaties since September 11, and the U.S. has exploited those treaties to effectively kidnap British citizens who broke no British laws, and extradite them to the U.S. for trial on charges of violating U.S. law.  It’s worth noting that the cases Oliva writes about are iffy white collar crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism.

And let’s not forget the Mark Emery case, in which the DEA’s zealous persecution of medical marijuana users led them to extradite a medical marijuana activist from Canada for charges of marijuana distribution in the U.S..  It was inarguably a purely political arrest. The DEA bullied Canadian and British Columbia law enforcement officials – where marijuana laws are lax, if enforced at all – into doing its bidding.

The jihad against online gambling spilling out from Congress these last few months portends a showdown between the U.S. and the U.K. What’s interesting is that this time, the U.K. is unlikely to back down.  Britain has embraced Internet gambling and gets a substantial amount of tax revenue from the $12 billion U.S. consumers spend gambling online each year, much of it with U.K.-incorporated gaming sites.  You have to think U.K. officials would have an interest in maintaining those revenues, not to mention in protecting their citizens, and in the integrity of the tech sector of their markets, which took a spill after Carruthers’ arrest.

Might the U.S. try to enforce its gambling ban by extraditing gambling executives in other countries? Would those countries comply? What are the implications of either scenario?

If Congress succeeds in pushing through its farcical, ill-considered ban on online gambling, these are just a few of the issues that’ll inevitably pop up down the road. I’ve written before about some possible free trade entanglements the bill presents. But here’s another: One way U.S. consumers may get around the bill’s deputizing U.S. banks to enforce the gambling ban would be to simply open accounts in banks based overseas. Will Congress then attempt to ban wire transfers between U.S. banks and overseas banks that allow transactions with gaming sites? I wouldn’t put it past them.

The heartening side of all of this is that it shows how technology, trade, and commerce can work together to circumvent heavy-handed government meddling. The distressing part is just how far some in the U.S. government will go to impose their values on American citizens.

I guess nobody ever said moral crusading was easy.

No Need for a Mandate

Much of the justification for an individual health insurance mandate, like that pushed by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation, is that people who lack insurance in the current system still receive medical treatment when needed.  The cost of treating these “free riders” is shifted to the insured and the taxpayer.  In particular, it is suggested that these uninsured individuals will end up at hospital emergency rooms.  Advocates of universal single-payer systems often make similar arguments.

But a new study in Health Affairs shows that that there is no significant difference in emergency room use between insured and uninsured populations.  The study concludes that increases in the number of uninsured are not likely to lead to an increase in emergency room visits.  However, the study does show that Medicaid beneficiaries use emergency rooms more than either the insured or the uninsured.  This may result both from the difficulty that Medicaid patients have in finding primary-care physicians willing to treat them at Medicaid’s low reimbursement rates, and from the fact that emergency room visits are essentially free for the Medicaid patient.

One other finding is worth noting as well.  Contrary to public perception, noncitizen immigrants actually use emergency rooms less than citizens.  Emergency rooms are not being overrun by illegal immigrants.

Topics:

George Will vs. the Neocons

Apropos of yesterday’s post plugging George Will’s condemnation of the Weekly Standard and neoconservatism, Will extends his remarks in his column for today’s Washington Post.  It’s tough to excerpt, but just to convince you it’s a George Will column, it ends with a baseball analogy:

Neoconservatives have much to learn, even from Buddy Bell, manager of the Kansas City Royals. After his team lost its 10th consecutive game in April, Bell said, “I never say it can’t get worse.” In their next game, the Royals extended their losing streak to 11 and in May lost 13 in a row.

Keep an eye on the Weekly Standard’s blog for a response.  Thanks to Steve Clemons for the tip.

Downside of Disclosure

The Washington Post reports today about the emergence of the Democratic Alliance, a group vetting organizations for wealthy, liberal contributors. The group has an interesting rule:

The alliance has required organizations that receive its endorsement to sign agreements shielding the identity of donors…The group requires nondisclosure agreements because many donors prefer anonymity…Some donors expressed concern about being attacked on the Web or elsewhere for their political stance; others did not want to be targeted by fundraisers.

Of course, the United States has a long tradition of anonymous speech and political activity, including The Federalist Papers. The donors to the Democratic Alliance continue in that tradition. Their desire for anonymity proves that mandatory disclosure of money in politics imposes costs on participation.

Those same costs affect donors to political campaigns who do not have a right to anonymous speech. In fact, a donor who gives to a challenger threatening an incumbent member of Congress faces a greater risk than that confronted by the donors to the Democracy Alliance.

Given their experience with the downside of disclosure, perhaps the donors to the Democratic Alliance (or the organizations they fund) will lead the way toward liberalizing or eliminating mandatory disclosure of campaign contributions.

Overkill

balko_whitepaper_300x394.jpgToday, my paper on SWAT teams and paramilitary tactics is finally released. It’s been the thrust of my research for nearly a year, now. It offers a history of SWAT teams, legal background, analysis and criticism of their increasingly frequent use and abuse, and an appendix of case studies that documents more than 150 botched raids.

You can download it for free [pdf]. If you want a slick, bound copy, you can order one for $10, and you’ll also get a copy of Gene Healy and Tim Lynch’s paper on the constitutional record of George W. Bush.

We’re also launching an interactive map to accompany the paper. The map plots every botched raid I’ve found in my research, with a description of what happened and a list of sources. You can sort the map by type of incident. So, for example, if you want to see only those raids where an innocent person was killed, it would look like this. If you want to see raids where a nonviolent offender was killed (a recreational gambler or potsmoker, for example), it would look like this. If you want to see all of the “wrong door” raids where no one was killed, it would look like this.

The map is also searchable by year, state, and type of incident.

Cato’s news release on the paper is here.

Is That the Best You Can Do?

An update from my blog entry on Friday:  The G8 summit has not given any substantive support to the Doha round of trade talks that I can discern. The best the G8 leaders (minus Russia, who failed to convince the US to sign off on their membership application to the WTO) could do apparently was to issue a statement of encouragement to WTO members to keep negotiating, and a permission slip for the WTO Director-General, Pascal Lamy, to consult with members in the hope of promoting “early agreement” (this coming five years into the launch of the Doha round). The leaders gave Mr Lamy until mid-August to report back on his mission. Note that this call to unblock trade talks was from only developed members of the WTO: Brazil and India, the two most powerful developing members in the WTO, will meet with the G8 today and will no doubt have their own perspective.

The G8 leaders’ statement implied they had come to no agreement as to how to break the current stalemate over trade talks, and provides much less momentum than would have been hoped for. For a group calling for “utmost urgency” in concluding a deal, they sure seem reluctant to do any heavy lifting themselves.

“I Don’t Think We’re Losing”

On ABC News’ This Week, George Stephanopoulos played a clip of a question posed to Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker, asking whether or not we are winning in Iraq. (Podcast here, segment begins at 32:30.)

After an exceedingly long pause, Schoomaker responds by saying “I…y’know…I think I would answer that by telling you I don’t think we’re losing.”

If that’s the most affirmative response the Army Chief of Staff can offer, it’s time for a radical recalibration of our strategy. It’s a cliché at this point—but no less true—that for insurgencies to succeed, they don’t have to win; they simply have to avoid losing. And if we’re not winning, they’re not losing.

As a bonus, be sure to check out George Will lashing the neocons on the same broadcast, noting that the “magnificently misnamed neoconservatives are the most radical people in this town,” and that Bill Kristol’s recent plea for US airstrikes against Iran embodies an approach that wonders “why put off to tomorrow when you can have a war today?”

It’s enough to make you consider watching the Sunday morning talk shows. For more of Will’s wisdom, look to the upcoming Cato’s Letter, which features Will’s address at the presentation of the 2006 Friedman Prize.