It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
According to in-house memos now circulating, the DHS has issued orders to banks across America which announce to them that "under the Patriot Act" the DHS has the absolute right to seize, without any warrant whatsoever, any and all customer bank accounts, to make "periodic and unannounced" visits to any bank to open and inspect the contents of "selected safe deposit boxes."
Further, the DHS "shall, at the discretion of the agent supervising the search, remove, photograph or seize as evidence" any of the following items "bar gold, gold coins, firearms of any kind unless manufactured prior to 1878, documents such as passports or foreign bank account records, pornography or any material that, in the opinion of the agent, shall be deemed of to be of a contraband nature."
DHS memos also state that banks are informed that any bank employee, on any level, that releases "improper" "classified DHS Security information" to any member of the public, to include the customers whose boxes have been clandestinely opened and inspected and "any other party, to include members of the media" and further "that the posting of any such information on the internet will be grounds for the immediate termination of the said employee or employees and their prosecution under the Patriot Act."
Conclusion: Convergence of Private and Public
Practices for Financial Recovery and Continuity
Many practices in the Interagency Paper came from financial firms’ experiences
and may thus be considered both public and private-sector ideas. Should the threat
level increase, government expects critical private financial institutions to have security forces, identity checks, and restricted access, and to work with state and local authorities.44 The Fed, a body with both public and private elements,45 remains ready to be the lender of last resort to the financial system and its customers as well. Recovery in the blackout of 2003, for example, was facilitated by the Fed,
institutions activating internal contingency plans, as well as a paging and alert
system set up after Sept. 11 by the Financial Services Roundtable (a group of major
financial providers) and its technology arm, called BITS.46
The 2001 Patriot Act chipped away financial privacy protections by
allowing law enforcement authorities easier access to bank customer
records. Under the Patriot Act, federal authorities may access customer
records by issuing formal subpoena-like requests under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) or informal national security
letters (“NSLs”) to banks while prohibiting notice to any affected
customers. However, the 2006 revisions to the Patriot Act permit banks
to challenge FISA requests and NSLs in federal court before releasing
customer records. While the Act does not require banks to make these
challenges on behalf of their customers, this Article will argue that the
contracts banks sign with their customers—interpreted in light of the
banking tradition of confidentiality and the current regime of federal
and state privacy protections—obligate banks to review government
requests for customer records and file challenges when appropriate.
Furthermore, I will argue that banks and customers should be able to
enter into contracts explicitly obligating banks to challenge FISA
requests and NSLs and that such contracts would be enforceable and
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
I don't know what the new reauthorized Patriot Act holds, but I know they don't do anything without a mountain of paperwork! It might not be a "warrant" like we are used to, but they definitely do not seize funds or open safe-deposit boxes without a mountain of paperwork to back it up.
Also, I have been pleasantly surprised through my work, at the reluctance of banks to cooperate with lawful intentions of the government. They don't work as cooperatively as you might imagine, and in every instance they work to CYA for themselves first. Eventually they always comply with lawful requests, but they don't take it lightly!
Originally posted by MrXYZ
First of all, your title is VERY misleading!
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by hotbakedtater
Good luck with that approach. I wrote and asked FEMA about the FEMA concentration camps and they simply never answered. I am sure it got me on a list somewhere though. Lol.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by MrXYZ
The UN weapons ban is a blatant lie?... since when?...
Now I think it is you who is twisting things around... in fact we do know that the UN does want to ban citizens from owning firearms... We have had several threads about it with direct links which say exactly what they want.
More and more regulations, licences, and other run arounds are being introduced worldwide which are banning firearms...
Originally posted by MrXYZ
I think the Virginia Tech shooting as well as the latest Tucson shooting made it abundantly clear that there's not enough regulations...because as it stands, every psychopath and his dog can get a gun. Hell, most guns used in the Mexican drug wars are bought in the US because it's so easy, and it cost more people's lives than the war in Afghanistan
Having a right is all god an well, but not at the expense of innocent lives!
The Virginia Tech shooting is a prime example why civilians should be allowed firearms even in schools. If one teacher, or any other student have had a firearm so many people wouldn't have died...