UK uses anti-terrorism legislation to freeze assets of Iceland. Um.
Apparently a day later they realized that sounded kind of bad and
agreed to remove references to "terrorism" from the action. How kind of them. However, "some lawyers had questioned whether the dispute was the appropriate use of legislation designed to combat crime." You think, maybe?
Now, economically, this asset-freezing may or may not be a good idea - I'm don't have enough data or economics knowledge to have a clue. But it sure reinfoces my view that slapping "anti=terrorism" on a bill is often code for "we're going to way over-reach with sweeping, under-specified government powers that could be used for just about anything." Ugh.
(Given the stuff we've put on the books here in the US lately, I'm kind of surprised that it's a different country I'm bitching about here.)