By U.S. Sen. JON KYL
It's very popular in some quarters to embrace "multilateralism," which many people seem to define as America placating the major nations of Europe. The thinking seems to be that if only we made more of an effort to get along with everyone else -- if only we signed on to more and more binding international treaties, for example -- nations like France and Germany would be more pleased with America's policy decisions.
Well, even if one were to agree with that notion, it's simply unrealistic. In some cases, there's even some danger in this kind of sentiment. What happens when the international community decides to dictate to Americans what constitutes acceptable U.S. social policy? What if American laws were suddenly, without warning, reversed by a group of Europeans who we've never heard of, elected, or agreed to be subjected to?
Think that couldn't happen? Well, it already has.
The world court - ever heard of it? - recently suggested that all foreigners who commit any crimes in the U.S. have "rights" to seek diplomatic help, perhaps even extradition, from their home countries rather than face the American criminal justice system. The Netherlands-based court ordered - let me repeat, ordered - U.S. states to halt the planned executions of three foreign nationals - one convicted of shooting a taxi driver to death, another for killing his wife and two children with a hammer, and the third for murdering two people in the course of a burglary. A similar ruling was imposed on the State of Arizona in 2000, but was rightly ignored, and the execution of two German citizens convicted of murder went ahead as scheduled.
Now another distant international body has deigned to tell the U.S. Congress what laws it's permitted to pass on issues wholly unrelated to international law. Two weeks ago, the World Trade Organization (WTO) forbade Congress to pass any legislation banning internet gambling in the United States, calling such laws impermissible violations of international trade. What does internet gambling have to do with international trade? Good question.
The dispute arose from fears of the tiny country of Antigua, which has a sizable internet gambling industry, that it would be cut off from the lucrative U.S. market if an internet gambling ban passes. So it filed suit against the United States before the WTO - and won.
The ruling, of course, is outrageous, and is being appealed. But, it should chill anyone still enamored with the notion of further integration with the international community.
Such unwarranted, and unwanted, interference in U.S. legislation could lead to troubling long-term consequences. If this ruling were allowed to stand, who knows how many other U.S. laws some other international body might choose to overturn? We cannot allow an unelected international tribunal to deny America's public officials the right to set our country's own social policies.
I happen to be a strong supporter of an internet gambling ban, and have introduced legislation that has received overwhelming support in both the U.S. House and Senate. Americans take rules about betting very seriously - a fact amply demonstrated by the seriousness we accord to players illegally betting on baseball or shaving points in a basketball game. In fact, we've had a ban on interstate sports gambling through telephone lines or wires since 1961. My legislation would include the internet within the existing ban. The internet, of course, did not exist when that earlier law was enacted, and the fifty state laws banning internet gambling will be more easily enforced if my bill is passed.
Without a ban on internet gambling, we will leave unchecked a dangerous and growing addiction. Internet gambling encourages organized crime, is rife with fraud and abuse, ruins credit ratings, and leads many young people to amass thousands of dollars in debt on their parents' credit cards.
Many witnesses have testified to internet gambling's dangers, and state attorneys general have long urged the federal government to adopt a uniform ban.
Whether or not this ban is a good idea is simply not the business of foreigners. It's not unfair trade to ban an activity in the U.S. whether conducted by Americans or foreigners. If this matter is not properly resolved, Americans will need to reappraise our involvement in international organizations that presume to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. social and legal policy.
http://www.zwire.com/site
It's very popular in some quarters to embrace "multilateralism," which many people seem to define as America placating the major nations of Europe. The thinking seems to be that if only we made more of an effort to get along with everyone else -- if only we signed on to more and more binding international treaties, for example -- nations like France and Germany would be more pleased with America's policy decisions.
Well, even if one were to agree with that notion, it's simply unrealistic. In some cases, there's even some danger in this kind of sentiment. What happens when the international community decides to dictate to Americans what constitutes acceptable U.S. social policy? What if American laws were suddenly, without warning, reversed by a group of Europeans who we've never heard of, elected, or agreed to be subjected to?
Think that couldn't happen? Well, it already has.
The world court - ever heard of it? - recently suggested that all foreigners who commit any crimes in the U.S. have "rights" to seek diplomatic help, perhaps even extradition, from their home countries rather than face the American criminal justice system. The Netherlands-based court ordered - let me repeat, ordered - U.S. states to halt the planned executions of three foreign nationals - one convicted of shooting a taxi driver to death, another for killing his wife and two children with a hammer, and the third for murdering two people in the course of a burglary. A similar ruling was imposed on the State of Arizona in 2000, but was rightly ignored, and the execution of two German citizens convicted of murder went ahead as scheduled.
Now another distant international body has deigned to tell the U.S. Congress what laws it's permitted to pass on issues wholly unrelated to international law. Two weeks ago, the World Trade Organization (WTO) forbade Congress to pass any legislation banning internet gambling in the United States, calling such laws impermissible violations of international trade. What does internet gambling have to do with international trade? Good question.
The dispute arose from fears of the tiny country of Antigua, which has a sizable internet gambling industry, that it would be cut off from the lucrative U.S. market if an internet gambling ban passes. So it filed suit against the United States before the WTO - and won.
The ruling, of course, is outrageous, and is being appealed. But, it should chill anyone still enamored with the notion of further integration with the international community.
Such unwarranted, and unwanted, interference in U.S. legislation could lead to troubling long-term consequences. If this ruling were allowed to stand, who knows how many other U.S. laws some other international body might choose to overturn? We cannot allow an unelected international tribunal to deny America's public officials the right to set our country's own social policies.
I happen to be a strong supporter of an internet gambling ban, and have introduced legislation that has received overwhelming support in both the U.S. House and Senate. Americans take rules about betting very seriously - a fact amply demonstrated by the seriousness we accord to players illegally betting on baseball or shaving points in a basketball game. In fact, we've had a ban on interstate sports gambling through telephone lines or wires since 1961. My legislation would include the internet within the existing ban. The internet, of course, did not exist when that earlier law was enacted, and the fifty state laws banning internet gambling will be more easily enforced if my bill is passed.
Without a ban on internet gambling, we will leave unchecked a dangerous and growing addiction. Internet gambling encourages organized crime, is rife with fraud and abuse, ruins credit ratings, and leads many young people to amass thousands of dollars in debt on their parents' credit cards.
Many witnesses have testified to internet gambling's dangers, and state attorneys general have long urged the federal government to adopt a uniform ban.
Whether or not this ban is a good idea is simply not the business of foreigners. It's not unfair trade to ban an activity in the U.S. whether conducted by Americans or foreigners. If this matter is not properly resolved, Americans will need to reappraise our involvement in international organizations that presume to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. social and legal policy.
http://www.zwire.com/site
