> During the great Icelandic banking crisis, the UK government used anti-terrorism laws to seize assets held by Icelandic banks. This is an oft-repeated distor

> During the great Icelandic banking crisis, the UK government used anti-terrorism laws to seize assets held by Icelandic banks. This is an oft-repeated distortion of the truth. The UK government did not seize any assets but, rather made a freezing order to prevent UK depositors' money being transferred from an Icelandic banks' UK-based subsidiary to Iceland (it was clear at the time that the Icelandic government intended to use - "steal" is probably a better word - foreign depositors' money to ensure that Icelandic depositors didn't lose out). The freezing order was enacted under section 2 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, on the basis that HM Treasury believed that "action to the detriment of the United Kingdom’s economy (or part of it) has been or is likely to be taken" by the Icelandic government. Critics of the UK governments' actions disingenuously refer to it as "anti-terrorism" legislation, conveniently ignoring the "Crime and Security" part of the Act's name. The freezing order was exercised correctly, appropriately and proportionally. A fuller discussion of the topic can be found at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7142487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7142487 David Miranda was found to be carrying tens of thousands of classified UK intelligence documents. I think he's lucky to have been allowed to go free, and not arrested for espionage. I suspect that the authorities felt a little sorry for him, given that he'd clearly been exploited by Greenwald.