| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| U.K. Supreme Court Strikes Down Terror Measure |
| 2010-01-27 |
| The U.K. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the British government had overstepped its powers in freezing the assets of terror suspects. The judges said the government should have sought Parliamentary approval before issuing two orders that imposed broad controls over the finances of five terror suspects. In response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions requiring member states to freeze assets of various individuals believed to be involved in terrorism. The U.K. implemented the measures through government orders, while some other countries introduced legislative acts. "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," wrote Supreme Court Deputy President David Hope in his judgment. "The Government is committed to maintaining an effective, proportionate and fair terrorist asset-freezing regime that meets our U.N. obligations, protects national security by disrupting flows of terrorist finance, and safeguards human rights," the U.K. Treasury said in a statement. It added that the ruling doesn't change the U.K.'s obligations under the U.N. charter to freeze assets of suspected criminals and that it "will introduce fast-track legislation to ensure there is no disruption" to its the system. In another ruling related to the same case, the Supreme Court also on Wednesday lifted a ban on identifying the five individuals who had challenged the government's right to freeze their assets. The individuals had argued to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals, among other reasons. The judgement cited several arguments for identifying individuals, including that more vivid and compelling media stories will "stimulate discussion" around important issues such as the use of freezing orders. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #2 Most Italians became far more familiar with US law than Italian law. So much so that they ended up changing their judicial system. Hmm. Maybe we should offer free reruns of Perry Mason to all those Islamic countries. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-01-27 20:47 |
| #1 It's kind of hard to get used to the idea of the U.K. Supreme Court, which has only been around since 2005, replacing the "Law Lords", a 12-seat judicial panel appointed to the House of Lords specifically for that purpose. The nagging sense is that this is because the SCOTUS is the highest profile court in the world, with credibility far greater than any other national or international court. Every one of its decisions is pondered by attorneys and judges around the world. This has created endless consternation, because a lot of non-Americans think that SCOTUS decisions apply to them, instead of the laws of their own country. A similar predicament happened in Italy, because of TV reruns of Perry Mason. Most Italians became far more familiar with US law than Italian law. So much so that they ended up changing their judicial system. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-01-27 13:31 |