Friday, October 10, 2008

Icelandic assets: Abuse of anti-terrorism laws by Government

"Iceland's prime minister Geir Haarde said the U.K. government is to blame for triggering the crisis when it used anti-terrorism laws to seize the assets of Icelandic banks in the U.K." (Bloomberg)

Another scandalous abuse of the legal process by the Labour Government, added to their catalogue of abuses at places like Heathrow and Kingsnorth

So the Government has no scruples when it comes to seeing Terrorism Act is applied to non-terrorists. How about real terrorists, do they get their assets frozen by the Government?

Faithful readers of this blog will recall the story I broke here and here and here and here of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi , the unlovely terrorist who beheaded poor Ken Bigley.

Months before they kidnapped Ken Bigley I wrote to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to ask how the financial component of the "war on terror" was going.

They wrote back saying, fine thanks, no problem, on top of the case, no worries.

Then when Ken was kidnapped, it was reported that the Government was taking action to freeze the assets of Abu Musab al-Zaqarwi, Ken Bigley's killer.

So the Government had not previously taken action against al-Zarqawi's group.

Logically, this was either because either
(a) they were ignorant of his existence, or
(b) they knew of his existence, but did not see fit to freeze his accounts.

I wrote via my MP 12 months ago to ask which was the case.

Baroness Symonds at the FCO replied.

"The Government always takes action to freeze the assets of any terrorist or terrorist group, whenever it is apparent that there are clear grounds on which to do so".

This is a clear indication that Government knew of the Musab al-Zaqarwi's group's existence, but did not see fit to freeze its assets.

Zarqawi had a long history of terrorist activity predating the Ken Bigley kidnapping.

Conclusion: the Government is only too ready to apply the AntiTerrorism Law to non-terrorists, but incompetent when it comes to applying similar powers against terrorists.

Why is this? My gut tells me that the banksters resist any government interference with their affairs, even when they are holding money for terrorists.

No comments: