03/14/08 – Gary Barnett – The Scott Horton Show

All right, my friends, welcome back to Anti-War Radio on Chaos 95.9 in Austin, Texas.
Our next guest is Gary Barnett.
He is the president of Barnett Financial Services Incorporated in Lewistown, Montana, and lately he's been writing for the Future of Freedom Foundation, Jacob Hornberger's great libertarian institute there in Virginia.
Welcome to the show, Gary.
Well, thanks, Scott.
I appreciate being here.
Well, I really appreciate this article that you wrote, actually a couple of articles you wrote, but this one particularly I wanted to ask you about, InfraGard, an unhealthy government alliance, and I can tell just because they spelled guard wrong in the name of the damn thing that these people have no idea what they're doing to start, and I think maybe that's a benefit.
Why don't you go ahead and tell us a little bit about what InfraGard is, where it comes from, and what's the problem?
Well, you know, the problem's not obvious, first off, just because there's not been a lot written about it and not a lot known.
Although many in InfraGard think it's not secret, getting information is virtually impossible, but basically, InfraGard is just a partnership between the FBI and private business, and it's just grown exponentially, so it's getting very, very large, and it's an organization that trades security, FBI gives them information, and I guess more information than the rest of us get, and protection, asset protection and that sort of thing for other information coming from private companies, so to help them in their so-called effort to stop terrorism.
Now, you say in your article that it was created in 1996, and that made me wonder, was it the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 that created this thing?
It was very small and very localized in 1996, of course, in Cleveland, and I don't know what was going on in 1996 as far as spying or snooping or whatever they had to be doing locally at that time.
It was supposedly started just strictly for cybercrime, so it was very small, but what's happened since 2001 is the growth has just been tremendous.
I guess when I hear about these things, I have to be perfectly honest with you and admit my own ignorance in front of the gigantic audience and everything, and that is I'd never even heard of InfraGard before, but as soon as I did, public-private partnership, sounds to me like this must be a loophole in a sense, a way for the FBI to do phishing expeditions and investigate people, gather intelligence on people by having a private organization do it for them.
Well, I mean, that was my take, but I have to be pretty straight with you here.
I didn't know much about InfraGard either.
Actually, I wrote an article not long before this one, New Crime of Thinking, which was exposing this House Bill 1955, Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and when I wrote that, I received just a tremendous amount of response from all over the country and elsewhere outside the country.
One gentleman alerted me to InfraGard and said he thought certainly you could tie these together, and he sent me information, and I started researching, and there's not a lot to find out.
I mean, you can get most of it right from their site, but after I spent a little time with this, to me, it looks like there is a direct link and that their basis is strictly to gain information from private companies that have lots of information about all of us and use that as a spying network, so to speak.
That's very interesting stuff, and you know that Homegrown Radicalization Act, I'm glad to know that you got a big response out of that.
It's a very important article that you wrote, and basically any article on that subject, I think, is very important.
Basically what this act does, this is the Jane Harman Bill, which, by the way, isn't she under investigation for ties to a foreign government or something like that, but anyway, this is her act that basically creates a commission to study all the different ways that various groups of left-wingers, right-wingers, and whoever else might be a threat to the United States.
It is that, the fear I have, it's very vague, and it allows government to look into basically anybody's life.
I mean, it's so vague, and it is tied, of course, to Homeland Security, so it just gives them some teeth and they can go out and basically, if it does pass, they're going to be able to basically go out and look at anybody for any reason, because it's just not clear enough, you know, the language.
And if you've read the bill, which I've read it several times, you know, I don't know how anyone would be left out of this thing.
And now, the InfraGard thing, do I understand right that it was, I guess, created originally to work with the FBI, but now is no longer tied with the Department of Justice, but is instead tied to the Department of Homeland Security, or it's just expanded and now sort of takes orders from both, or what do you know about that?
Well, it's certainly a part of the Department of Homeland Security.
I think that came from, initially, the National Infrastructure Protection Center, NITC.
You know, the whole focus of that was cyber infrastructure protection, but what has happened is NITC has been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.
They are in charge of cyber investigation now, so it looks like, to me, that InfraGard, and they will tell you this, that they're not an actual part of that department.
The NITC, all of the so-called threats to critical infrastructure investigation now is strictly handled by the Department of Homeland Security, and, you know, it's all tied together.
I mean, the InfraGard organization, according to Robert Mueller, who, of course, is head of the FBI, they work with every national security organization now.
So, you know, to me, it's just all tied together.
If it's Secret Service or NSA, and, of course, FBI and NSA have a very close relationship, and with the recent news coming out about the spying, and the four years in a row, FBI has continued spying elitely, that this stuff gets tied together more and more and more.
Well, and, you know, they've had, I guess, years and years now precedent that, apparently, they're not really interested in targeting the actual associates of Osama Bin Laden who threaten this country, but, instead, would rather entrap some dumbass into saying something stupid into a microphone, where they can make a case, and, you know, a lot of times, we see these guys who are completely innocent, or almost entirely innocent, like, I'm thinking of a kid in Lodi, California, they pretended he was, you know, some agent of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or something over here, when, in fact, he's just some kid who got entrapped and prosecuted, and that's the thing that really bothers me, is it isn't like these guys are just, you know, some great cop out of, you know, Law and Order on TV or something, and would never do anything wrong with their power.
They've proven that they really have no interest in exercising these anti-terrorism powers against anybody but your average American out there, when they think they can get away with it.
Well, I mean, the surveillance is becoming, well, it's just ridiculous, and, you know, part of the reason that I have an interest in this area, of course, my only reason, I mean, I'm just a small businessman in Montana, but, you know, I believe in total freedom and liberty, and, you know, the only thing I can do is try to expose things, so that's why I write, but, you know, this whole surveillance situation, I got more and more interested in just because of what goes on in my own business.
Right, and the Patriot Act probably has you snitching on all your people for all their financial activities that you partake in, right?
Well, and if you read some of my previous articles concerning the USA Patriot Act and finance, I mean, the stuff that we're supposed to be doing as financial advisors, brokers, principals, what have you, and it's not just my particular industry, which is brokerage, but any finance, and, of course, the definition there has been expanded to include almost everything.
Right, anybody who sells cars, or trucks, or boats, or anything like that, those are all financial institutions, too, now.
And jewelry stores, and convenience stores, and what have you.
And convenience stores, too, even.
I'm sorry to interrupt you, I just think that's great.
Well, you know, they issue money orders, so, you know, they're now a financial institution, so, but at any rate, by mandate, you know, per the Patriot Act, you know, brokers in the same position I'm in, you know, we're supposed to, on a continuous basis, monitor our accounts, and if anything happens that is considered abnormal, and when I say abnormal, I mean, it gets pretty ridiculous, and some of the examples that have been used in my industry, which, if a client is too young to, or shouldn't have money, in other words, if a young client, 30 years old, comes in and deposits $100,000, or transfers it in, we're supposed to be suspicious of that, or an 80-year-old grandmother, if she puts money in and takes it out, and maybe puts it back in again, we're supposed to consider that as a possibility of money laundering, but any suspicious activity, any deposits of money orders, or cashier's checks, or, you know, virtually anything that I would consider normal, but anymore, those things are scrutinized, and if we see that, we're supposed to, of course, contact our in-house anti-money laundering person, who is basically our anti-money laundering czar, and there's somebody appointed at each firm, and they, in turn, look at this and decide whether or not to alert the FBI, so that they can begin to, you know, take a look at the situation, and monitor, and see if this is some sort of a terrorist situation, so it's gotten to the point, it's past ridiculous, and, I mean, some of the things that are normal have been normal forever now, we're supposed to report, which, basically, is a conscription of me, telling me that I'm supposed to spy on my clients, and turn them in if I think something's not kosher, that's ridiculous.
It sounds like you've been mandated, kind of deputized, and then mandated to do the kinds of phishing expeditions that cops are not allowed to do.
Well, that's exactly right, and, you know, and people don't understand, every account that's open now, and I assume at banks, and certainly at financial institutions, brokerage firms, and that kind of thing, every account that's open, the folks that open the account go through background checks, and if something doesn't match perfectly, if they've moved recently, or a number is missed in their social, or even an address, or anything, then we get notified to get additional information, and driver's license, and maybe a passport, or birth certificate, or what have you, get the information there, and it's turned back over, and they go through a secondary check.
I mean, this is what's happening on a day-to-day basis in just, you know, normal business.
I guess, yeah, see, that's really the key, right, is the normalcy here.
I'm crazy for thinking that none of this is any of the national government's business whatsoever.
Well, it's not.
Obviously, being libertarian, you know, I don't think anything is their business.
If you haven't, you know, done anything to harm another, or to limit their freedom.
Yeah, and even then, that would be your state's business, not the national government's business.
They're here to protect us from the British and counterfeiting, and that's about it.
They do the counterfeiting, not us.
Well, I mean, the counterfeiting going on right now is pretty obvious, and it's not the citizenry, but, you know, at any rate, you know, it's become a very tough situation, and I had, you know, when I wrote this article, I immediately had responses from InfraGard members, and, you know, they, for the most part, you know, we're a simple organization.
We're only trying to be patriots and to protect, you know, America and that kind of thing, and the first few responses I got from InfraGard members were pretty similar, and that changed, so I did get quite a few responses from InfraGard members, and then I started getting a few, and they thanked me for the article, and some were sympathetic, and then I got a few responses from folks at major communication companies and Internet companies thanking me for the article and saying, you know, things are going on, so, you know, it's just, I think, the basic InfraGard structure, the localized small meetings and folks in the community that are involved with it who might own small companies or be involved with computers or agriculture or what have you, chemicals, I don't think that all the members are out there giving all the information the government wants.
I think it's isolated, and personally, I don't think every member, I don't think they know what's going on, and I don't think they know which, you know, the top folks in that organization, and I don't think they know what they're doing, and it certainly can't get, it's been impossible for me to get any list of, you know, what higher-ups, you know, of larger companies are in higher positions and who's actually involved.
They don't give out that information.
Well, you know, as a libertarian, I always prefer private security to government security, and I'm sure you do too, but the problem here, I think we can agree, is that it's both, and that's the worst of both worlds when you combine the public-private partnership, because then you have the profit motive for all the police power being exercised, but you don't have any of the risk.
You have tax money to collect, and you have the government to back you up from any of the consequences of your behavior.
So, I mean, this is not to sound like a socialist just throwing the word around as an epithet, but this is literally fascism, right?
This kind of public-private partnership and police power?
Well, I mean, that's the way I take it, and, you know, it's dangerous.
As you said, the profit motive is there, and what other incentives, you know, might be available to these folks, we don't know.
I mean, and then if you look, and with the situation with Bush right now where he's, you know, going completely to the math to protect, you know, these communications companies, and, you know, of course, InfraGard's full of communication company individuals, Internet individuals, you know, all infrastructure, period.
And, you know, with him going to the math to try to disallow lawsuits and to try to protect these companies, my first question was how many individuals that are involved with these companies are in InfraGard, and I can't get that information.
I'd love to know it.
Right, and, you know, that plus the fact that, you know, most of us have never even heard of this thing before you wrote this article, you know, it brings up that.
I think it just makes it an immutable fact that there is no accountability here.
If we don't even know who these people are, we have no ability to get any information about them.
How could they possibly be held responsible for anything they do wrong?
Well, you know, if they're able to protect them legally, you know, how much more information are they going to get that they haven't already?
And since I wrote that article, you know, there's been some interesting things that have happened, of course, with the FBI and finding out, you know, just what, you know, a lot of the information coming to the FBI or to the NSA, the transfer from the FBI to the NSA, some of the information coming out of this, and I think the Wall Street Journal recent article on the 10th exposed this, but, you know, they were getting actually more information than they were asking for from these private companies concerning individuals.
Well, you know, that says a whole lot.
Yeah, especially when the FBI admits that they've been going around abusing these national security letters and administrative warrants to do their own phishing expeditions on people.
Well, and it's continuous, and it's becoming more prevalent all the time.
Have you considered suing under the Freedom of Information Act to try to get as many documents as you can?
Well, you're talking about from InfraGard?
Yeah, or from DHS or FBI or whoever you can.
You know, I don't know.
InfraGard, to me, seems to be pretty secure in their information.
I don't know if you can get it from the Freedom of Information Act.
But, you know, it's something that I've had a few people contact me and wonder how easy it would be to infiltrate and to find out exactly what's going on, and I told them, I said, you know, I don't think it would be that difficult for certain individuals to get involved, but to get involved in such a manner as to know what's going on at the top level, I think would be virtually impossible, you know, for a normal individual.
Well, you know, you can take that infiltration the other way, too.
If you have the next wave of Mohammed Attahs and friends in the country, how hard might it be for them to infiltrate the thing in order to protect their activities?
Well, you know, I guess, you know, the whole gist of this thing, like I said, I've had several InfraGard members contact me since I wrote this article and told me to come and join.
And I could probably get involved.
I fail to believe that, but even if I were involved, I don't think I would be able to get that information.
But I think anyone that had the proper paperwork or proper background check or what have you, you know, could become a member.
I don't know what they would gain from it, but certainly I think the possibility is there.
Well, that would be interesting to have some Pentagon papers leaked out.
That's something we've really been lacking.
There have been some whistleblowers, but there's been a real lack of documents stolen from the government and published in these last few years.
Yeah, it's getting better.
You know, the Internet has been tremendous, and folks like you and, of course, Jacob Hornberger and his organization and many others, Lou Rockwell and what have you, we're getting more and more people to at least, you know, be suspicious and look around.
But, you know, and that's one of the points I made in my last article, in the new crime of thinking, that actually could be a danger to the Internet.
I mean, the Internet is specifically targeted in that piece of legislation.
So we have to continue to keep lines open and communication and keep talking and keep writing.
Well, you know, one of our frontrunners, Hillary Clinton, for the presidency, she has openly said that the Internet needs a, quote, rethink, that the problem with it is that Gary Barnett can write an article and publish it on FFF without any official government gatekeeper sanctioning what you've written.
She said that outright.
That's correct.
If the opportunity to, you know, basically practice free speech is infringed, you know, especially with the Internet, considering the wonderful communication systems we have now, that's going to be a blow that will be hard to overcome.
You got it.
All right, everybody, that's Gary Barnett.
He's the president of Barnett Financial Services Incorporated in Lewistown, Montana.
And he has been writing lately for the Future Freedom Foundation.
That's Jacob Hornberger's institute in Virginia at FFF.org.
Thanks very much for your time today, Gary.
Appreciate it.
Thank you very much for having me.