Terrorist suspect Asset Seizures unlawful

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Blogg, Jan 27, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Which should come as no great surprise really: unlateral imposition by the Treasury of a law which exceeded its powers and yet another example of what happens if you talk tough for headlines and try to blag things through without proper consideration of law and procedure. Rather like invading Iraq, really.

    "The original Terrorism (UN Measures) Order 2006 and the 2006 al-Qaeda and Taleban (UN Measures) Order were made under section 1 of the 1946 UN Act in order to implement resolutions of the UN Security Council.

    Both orders became part of British law without a Parliamentary debate, which the men said was unfair because the government had created offences without putting it to a vote.

    The men also argued that the British system went beyond what the UN had set out to do by targeting those accused of links to terrorism, rather than any link at trial.

    Lord Hope said the Treasury had exceeded its powers in how it had devised and implemented the Terrorism Order.

    "This is a clear example of an attempt to adversely affect the basic rights of the citizen without the clear authority of Parliament," he said.

    Turning to the second type of restriction, the al-Qaeda Order, Lord Hope said that one of the five men, Mohammed al-Ghabra, had been denied a basic right to legally challenge the controls and argue that they were unfair. "


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8482630.stm
     
  2. Fcuk em. Play with fire, get burned.
    Fcuk with the British, get fcuked :)
     
  3. Don't I remember someone once saying "Tough on Crime, Tough on the causes of Crime" shouldn't New Liarbour's catch phrase have been "Tough on Crime, Tough on the causes of Crime, unless it upsets the criminals"?

    No, I'm not off track, Terrorism is a crime after all, but then we can't hurt their human rights, it's not as though they don't plan to take all the rights of the humans they want to kill!
     
  4. **** em, If it was unlawful. :? Change the law and make it retrospective.
    those piss poor courts,judges and so called protectors and servants of the people are so full s*it.
    My piss is boiling :evil:
     
  5. The words "accused" and "suspect" are the key ones here.
    When it gets to the phrase "found guilty of", then start to strip assets.
     
  6. Nothing wrong with seizure of assets where properly justified but the Supreme Court ruled on a point of law.

    Fact thet "terrorists" were involved is emotive and was used by those involved as an excuse pad for a Government making bad law through a bad procedure procedures and not thinking things through. All of which is of course depressingly familiar.

    "......the Supreme Court justices said that if the government wanted to take "far-reaching measures" to combat terrorism then it needed the approval of Parliament.

    Lord Hope said: "Even in the face of the threat of international terrorism, the safety of the people is not the supreme law.

    "We must be just as careful to guard against unrestrained encroachments on personal liberty."


    If you ignore due process in return for a headline grab or an instant "something must be done" response, as this Government so often has, always bound to keep being eventually knocked back in court and so managing to look constantly stupid, ineffective and prone to wilful ignorance of the rule of law. All of which is of course also depressingly familiar.
     
  7. 'The words "accused" and "suspect" are the key ones here.'

    Well said - remember that there have been a number of high-profile arrests of terrorist suspects, only to be (very quietly) released when no evidence was found. Also remember, that this bunch have a very nasty habit of extending the use of draconian 'anti-terrorist' laws to your friendly local council. This is the bunch, also, who want to lock you up for 42 days without charge.

    By all means seize assets if abdul next door is found, beyond reasonable doubt, to be AQ plotting to blow up a bus/train/airliner and convicted, but be very careful what you wish for, you might just get it applied to you, and I guarantee that you won't like it.
     
  8. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    The question in this case must surely be - do you trust the Government to use these powers wisely, or not? As an example, look at the 'Stop and Search' part of the Terrorism Act, recently ruled illegal.

    In 2008:

    Number of people stopped nationwide by British Transport Police using s 44: 160,000
    Number of people stopped in London by the Metropolitan Police using s. 44: 200,000
    Number of people amongst the 360,000 stopped under s. 44 and found to have any terrorist material or links: 0

    So, 360,000 people - over 1/3 of a million in London alone - were subject to S&S for absolutely no result whatsoever. This sort of 'result', coupled with news of Councils using anti-terrorism powers to snoop on people filling their wheelie bins, or on where parents of schoolchildren live, show that, no matter how much the Governemnt may say, they simply cannot be trusted to use their 'powers' responsibly.

    Poor laws, poorly drafted, and poorly utilised.
     
  9. Innocent until proven guilty - no matter what crime you are accused of.
    That is the basis of our legal system. At least it used to be until Liarbour started effing with it.
     
  10. Or the Argies complaining it was unfair to use a professional British Army against Argintinian conscripts? :twisted:
     
  11. The legal & justice system has long been a joke for a long time (even certain exceptional cases are still being deferred for appeal)

    Judges being advised by the Government to jail less to keep the Prison's from overflowing :x is that still the case or that sitrep a bit outdated?
     
  12. Fixed it for you.
     
  13. Only because we choose to treat it as such. It is actually an attack on the very fabric of the nation state particularly non-combatant members.

    Pass the law then kill them :evil:
     
  14. May I suggest to the agencies pursuing such individuals that they also have the Proceeds of Crime Act to fall back on. After all, Terrorism is a crime.

    Cases are heard in Civil Courts and the onus is on the individual who has had their money/ assets seized to prove it's legitimate provenance. If they can't, then after the hearing it is formally forfeited by the court.

    It would be an interesting exercise to see whether such people could or would produce compelling evidence and an audit trail to explain their assets.
     
  15. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    Yes, spurtle, but the individuals in the case reported today have not (yet) been convicted. So the Proceeds of Crime Act doesn't apply. Hence 'initiative' by then Chancellor G Brown which is now seen to have holes in it as staff work was not properly done.

    Edited to add, don't get me wrong, we do need to nail/GET RID OF these people but the Govt has to run a legal ruler over what it does before it goes off and tries to make law on the hoof behind Parliament's back.