4serendipity - 10:13 pm on Mar 8, 2012 (gmt 0)
You aren't understanding everything that is at issue here.
Certainly most reasonable people will agree that the state has the right to forcibly stop illegal behavior, or even suspected illegal behavior.
What is at issue are the questions of what is illegal, the extraterritorial extent of US law, the legal status of the generic top-level domains, the international credibility of ICAAN and domain registrars, among other things.
I, personally, have a difficult time agreeing that information itself can be illegal. I'm increasingly in fear of pervasive censorship. I generally think that the government would only target unquestionably questionable operations, but there has been enough questionable use of government power over the past few years to give me Orwellian thoughts at times.
Also, online gambling is legal under international law (in fact, the EU has argued that the US prohibition of online gambling violates international trade law). Granted, Bodog does appear to have made great efforts to operate in and profit from gray areas, especially in their choice of advertising venues.
And there are due process consequences at stake. I don't know enough about the case to comment on specific procedural due process violations, if there are any. However, a very legitimate argument that the basis for the use of government power in these cases is vague enough to violate due process, and that, additionally, there is a worrisome possibility that non-intuitive application of vague laws could create a chilling effect on legitimate business activity.
Finally, on a personal, common sense level, I just find it silly that our tax money paid for a Homeland Security detective to place sports bets online to make their case. I really do have a hard time not laughing at the condemnation of 'illegal' offshore gambling when there's a huge gambling industry in this country, along with various forms of state-operated lotteries just about anywhere you look.