UK Court Invalidates Terrorist Asset Freezing
 |
James Joyner | Thursday, April 24, 2008 |
Counterterrorism Blog: UK Court Invalidates Terrorist Asset Freezing Regime as Unconstitutional
Today, the UK’s high court invalidated the country’s asset freezing regime against terrorists, ruling it to be unconstitutional.
The ruling has been described as devastating to the UK’s strategy against terrorism. It was based on the court finding that the UK government could not simply implement UN Security Council resolutions directly, but had to go to Parliament first to get them authorized.
One presumes, however, that if the PM wants to free assets of suspected terrorists his party, which definitionally controls the House of Commons, would back his play. Presumably, too, Parliament could pass legislation setting forth the parameters by which Cabinet ministers could issue should orders on their own initiative.
No doubt, there are plenty of times when law enforcement needs to act quickly against terrorists even more so than against ordinary violent criminals. It’s far from clear, though, why this would apply to asset forfeiture.
Graphic via International Institute for Counter-Terrorism
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- Supreme Court Focus of 2008 Election
- Jefferson ‘Wins’ Supreme Court Case
- California Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban
- More on the AKP Ruling in Turkey
- Supreme Court Punts on D.C. Gun Ban
- Limbaugh Issues ‘Operation Chaos’ Pause
- Politicians Lying is Free Speech
- Limbaugh McCain’s Most Valuable Asset?
- Supreme Court Made Supreme Error in Child Rape Decision
- McCain Suspends Campaign to ‘Work on the Economy’
No doubt, there are plenty of times when law enforcement needs to act quickly against terrorists even more so than against ordinary violent criminals. It’s far from clear, though, why this would apply to asset forfeiture.
I agree with this only in so much as it requires either secrecy, closed session etc., or is still quick enough that an organization cannot liquidate their assets. Given that, this doesn't seem like a impediment at all, how many politicians would stand up for someone named by their own government as a terrorist. Or more importantly how many politicians would risk defending an organization who could conceivably attack the country. No I think they will all err on the side of protecting their own asses from potential damage down the road.
Indeed, Tad, but what is it about freezing a terrorist's assets that needs (or indeed, can) be secret? Such an action could only realistically be taken after the 'persona non grata' declaration. I'm sure the 'wingers will pounce upon this as some horrifying example of how the British courts hate freedom or some such crap, but really they're just reminding the PM's office that they have to follow their own laws and proper procedure before acting. If only someone would do that on this side of the Atlantic...
Comments are Closed
