Deep Politics Forum

Susan Lindauer did 12 months in US gov't Nazi jail for exposing 9-11 false flag attack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA

Do watch the video above!.....She only knows what she knows...but what she knows is a DEEP threat to the US Deep Political Establishment....they tried to silence her. They likely will keep trying.

What if the government decided to invent a great lie to sell a disastrous war and a questionable anti-terrorism policy? What would happen to the Assets who know the truth?

Former CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer, provides an extraordinary first-hand account from behind the intelligence curtain that shatters the government's lies about 9/11 and Iraq, and casts a harsh spotlight on the workings of the Patriot Act as the ideal weapon to bludgeon whistle blowers and dissidents. A terrifying true story of "black budget" betrayals and the Patriot Act, with its arsenal of secret evidence, indefinite detention and threats of forcible drugging, EXTREME PREJUDICE reveals one Asset's desperate struggle to survive the brutal cover ups of 9/11 and Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------

Bin Laden's Death Won't End the War on Terror Until Americans Understand the Threat Was Always Us

By Susan Lindauer, 9/11 Whistleblower and author of Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq

Some of our leaders think Americans don't need the truth about 9/11 any more, because Osama's dead and it's over.
As somebody who got brutalized at "ground zero" of the 9/11 cover up for most of the past 10 years, I could not disagree more. I'm sick of asking for a proper Congressional investigation. Congress already knows the truth about 9/11. That's why they're not poking around. However, it's a huge mistake for the rest of us who know the truth, or parts of it, to wait for permission to speak. America has trapped itself in a mythic nightmare about terrorism that exaggerates our enemies, while our leaders manipulate our sense of patriotism and effectively blind us to mistakes in national security policy. It's not a successful policy if it weakens our country.
The United States has reached a tipping point when we have to consider the end of the "American Age." In which case, an honest examination of 9/11 becomes imperative. Americans must understand 9/11, so that we can puncture the creepy bubble around the War on Terrorism, and sweep away the phony threat that's got all of Washington plotting Wars in the Middle East, bankrupting our economy with runaway defense spending, and tearing down civil rights in the name of national security.
The lie itself is formidable. Valerie Plame, a lady I greatly admire, recently tried to assure Americans that the U.S. government could never keep such a huge and devastating secret for so long. Wanna bet? Myself, I got rewarded with 5 years of indictment as an "Iraqi Agent," including one year in prison on Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texaswithout a trial or hearingafter I requested to testify about Iraq and 9/11.
Thirty days after I spoke with top staffers for Senator Trent Lott and Senator John McCain, the FBI showed up with a warrant for my arrest.
My 5 year indictment on the Patriot Act nicknamed me "Symbol Susan." It was not subtle. The viciousness I suffered was purposefully designed to scare off on anybody else who might consider talking. The cover ups of 9/11 and Iraq distinguished the Patriot Act as the premiere weapon to take down whistle blowers.
To those others I say, they cannot silence us if we refuse to give up our voice. I challenge Congress to put our country on the right track by holdings hearings on 9/11 to take our testimony. I will gladly swear to all of the following under oath:
THE TRUTH: A SUMMER OF ADVANCE WARNINGS
The truth is that our team, which triangulated the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, discussed the 9/11 attack in its exact scenario and time frame throughout the summer of 2001. We talked about it practically every week at our meetings. We also discussed it on the telephone, pointedly joking "Hello NSA! Pick up the phone" knowing the National Security Agency had wire tapped my lines.
There's no question that the story of the 9/11 conspiracy was planted months in advance to prep the intelligence community for the government's reaction. And it unfolded exactly as they told us it wouldwith a little help from an orphan explosives team. That will be explained in a second article. The two are not contradictory.
Before we get to that, Americans must first accept the motivation for 9/11, and why the U.S. government allowed it to happen. This was a Pearl Harbor Day. And it achieved an agenda, which was already well defined.
From the first moment that I was told about 9/11 in April and May of 2001, I was informed that the United States planned to declare War on Iraq immediately when 9/11 happened. The two were already linked as cause and effect.
Threats of War Against Iraq
I can testify to that absolutely, because I was the Asset commanded to deliver those threats to Iraqi diplomats at the United Nations. I was instructed to say the "U.S. intended to declare War on Iraq if Baghdad failed to provide actionable intelligence to stop the conspiracy involving airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center. We would bomb Iraq more aggressively than ever beforeback to the Stone Age."
My CIA handler further demanded that I stress the threat of War "originated at the highest levels of governmentabove the CIA Director and the Secretary of State." He considered the warnings to have more potency if Iraqi diplomats understood the muscle of those issuing the threats.
As the primary back channel to Baghdad from 1996 through 2003, I delivered that message with all precision from April and May right through August 4, 2001. I can pinpoint the day, because the conversation with my CIA handler took place on the day of the Senate confirmation hearings for Robert Mueller's appointment to head the FBI.
My CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz speculated aloud that the 9/11 attack might occur before Mueller was formally instated as FBI Director.
In the same conversation, Dr. Fuisz warned that I must not go back to New York, because the attack was "imminent" and the CIA expected "mass casualties" and a "possible miniature thermo nuclear device." Over his objections, I insisted on returning to Iraq's Embassy at the U.N. one last time to see if diplomats had received any reports from Baghdad. Then I promised I would not go back to New York until after the attack.
My meeting with Iraqi diplomats occurred two days later on Saturday, August 4. I did not return to New York until September 18.
Let me be clear: The threat was not vague or undefined. We fully expected airplane hijackings and some sort of aerial strike targeting the World Trade Center, specifically. No other target or location was ever discussed.
Details of the 9/11 conspiracy and the full history of Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence are disclosed in my book, "Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq." It's a real life spy thriller, and it goes into much greater depth, whereas this article can only scratch the surface.
"Extreme Prejudice" reveals a truth that's very different from what America has been told. I challenge Congress to put me under oath and rip me with questions. Americans have the right to hear my direct testimony, which would disclose a complete chronology of our advance discussions about the conspiracy, in addition to our considerable efforts to stop the attack.
It's nothing like what you expect. As a life-long anti-war activist, I was highly agitated about the threats of war that I was commanded to deliver to Iraqi diplomats. And I'm not a passive individual. Adding to the tension, by the summer of 2001 the international community had developed a deep loathing for U.N. sanctions that were destroying Iraq's social fabric and community infrastructure. The days of U.N. sanctions on Iraqwhich I reviled, toowere closing fast. The international community would have condemned any rogue military action against Iraq.
The CIA was way ahead of the curve on Iraq. Unbeknownst to the public, from the opening days of the Bush administration in January 2001, our team had begun hammering out a comprehensive framework for achieving all U.S. objectives, including weapons inspections, so that the U.S could claim a major victory while ceding to pressure for the U.N. sanctions to end. Anti-terrorism was a central part of our peace framework. In fact, Iraq had agreed to invite an FBI Task Force to conduct terrorism investigations by February, 2001. The CIA had also won Iraq's consent for major reconstruction contracts for U.S. corporations in telecommunications, hospitals and health care, transportation and oil. Everything the U.S. wanted was ours for the taking. And the CIA wanted it all.
Our Team Efforts to Stop 9/11
When my CIA handler, Dr. Fuisz informed me on August 2 that the 9/11 attack was in play and considered "imminent," he and I together resolved to take more aggressive action to prevent it.
I'm not telling you what somebody else did that I heard about later. I'm telling what actions I took myself in "real time" to try to stop the 9/11 attack.
On Monday, August 6, I reported to Dr. Fuisz after my trip to New York. I told him that Iraqi diplomats had thrown up their hands. They had nothing to give us. Yes, they assured me, Baghdad was fully aware that Iraq faced a threat of full scale war, if a 9/11 style of attack occurred. They understood that it would be in their greatest interest to provide us with any fragment of intelligence to help stop the attack. They understood that 9/11 would complicate our peace framework exactly at the moment when the international community was ready to throw off U.N. sanctions. Bottom line, they had nothing to give us.
I was an unusual party to this discussion, motivated by deep antipathy for sanctions, violence through terrorism and war. For those reasons, I informed Dr. Fuisz that I felt super motivated to do everything in my power to stop 9/11, both to protect the people of New York City and to prevent an unnecessary Warexactly at the moment when our team was completing this outstanding peace framework that achieved all U.S. objectives.
At the instructions of Dr. Fuisz on August 6, I personally placed phone calls to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's private staff at the Justice Department on August 7 or 8. Identifying myself as the CIA Asset covering the Iraq and Libya Embassies at the United Nations, I personally requested that Ashcroft's Office post "an emergency broadcast alert across all agencies, seeking any fragment of intelligence on airplane hijackings, with a known target of the World Trade Center." I described the attack as "imminent," with the potential for "mass casualties. I asked for maximum inter-agency cooperation and urged that any information be forwarded to the CIA immediately.
Hearing my request, staff in the inner sanctum of Attorney General John Ashcroft's office gave me a phone number at the Office of Counter-Terrorism in the Justice Department, and urged me to repeat exactly what I had just told them. I did so without delay. I dialed the number. I spoke to the staff.
I wasn't taking any chances. A few days later, I visited the home of my cousin, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card. I waited in my car while his neighbors peeked out their windows, determined to warn him about our 9/11 scenario, and request cabinet level support to pre-empt the attack. Alas, Andy did not come home. When I drove away after two hours, I did so believing that I might be making the greatest mistake of my life.
There was still plenty of time for action to pre-empt the attack. Americans have a right to know how top leaders in government handled our warnings, and effectively thwarted those best efforts in August of 2001.
There was a lot of action that Augustincluding a second set of events that I would learn about years later, involving an unidentified orphan team that would lay explosives in the Twin Towers. My next article will explain how those two conspiracies converged. Contrary to what the 9/11 Truth Community supposes, these two operations do not cancel out each other.
But first Americans must understand that 9/11 was a "stand down" operation, a true Pearl Harbor Day, meaning that U.S. and foreign intelligence understood what was coming. The leadership at the top of the U.S. government made an active decision to let the attack go ahead because the decision was already made that 9/11 would provide a pretext for War in Iraq. With peace breaking out in the Middle East at that very moment, the War Party required a massive scale threat to overturn the peace process. Clearly they decided that nothing would be allowed to interfere with that objective.
Once that factor's understood, 9/11 becomes comprehensible.
Some of my testimony would surprise Americalike efforts by Saddam Hussein's government to guarantee Iraq's complete cooperation with global anti-terrorism efforts before and after 9/11. That will be addressed in another article.
Finally, my book, EXTREME PREJUDICE provides a full scope of the brutality by the Justice Department to silence me and other Assets, using the Patriot Act as a weapon to guarantee the success of its deception. (A hint: Assets watched the cover ups of 9/11 and Iraq on prison television. And I wasn't the only prisoner).
Oh it wasn't all bad! My CIA handler got $13 million tax-free from emergency appropriations for the 9/11 investigation in November, 2001 He built himself a grand mansion a stone's throw from CIA headquarters in McLean, Virginia. Not a dollar or a dime got spent on 9/11. Mind you, the government's not complaining. But shifting tax dollars away from Iraq's cooperation with the 9/11 investigation took food off my table. I paid a terrible price for it. More later in this series.
Democracy Requires Accountability
All parts of the 9/11 warnings, the cover up the arrests and pay offs should disturb Democrats and Republicans alike who brag about their leadership support for Assets engaged in anti-terrorism. It makes a lie of their pledge of loyalty, for sure. And it denigrates their performance as stewards of national security, which ought to be a litmus test for the 2012 Campaigns. Those who don't care for the people's business don't belong in government.
Simply put, democracy requires accountability to the people. Americans have a fundamental right to possess the truth about 9/11 and the decision to declare War on Iraq months before the attackbecause national security does matter in this age. Americans require that knowledge, so as to assess the leadership performance and quality of policy making on our behalf.
Good leaders don't have to be afraid. Bad leaders should be sent packing for the betterment of government.
Most alarmingly, 9/11?s legacy has proved detrimental to the security of our country. According to the National Journal, fighting this phantom demon of terrorism today involves 1,271 government agencies, producing 50,000 intelligence reports a year that for the most part nobody reads. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclus...g_exclusive/th e-cost-of-bin-laden-3-trillion-over-15-years Meanwhile, "black budgets" for intelligence operations have mushroomed to $75 billion a year, financing both domestic and international surveillance that monitors law-abiding citizens across the country. There's no federal auditing authority or Congressional oversight over "black budgets." It's all tax free and unregulated. It's a secret government gone wild.
Osama's death has been a great victory for the CIA. But it will not bring U.S. soldiers home from Iraq and Afghanistan, where military operations have cost $1.6 trillion and counting. It won't end the nonsense War against Libya, which has no justification at all.
Osama's death will not quash the planning stages for future wars against Syria, and God help us, Iran.
Is it really patriotic to stay silent while the military industrial complex devours our economy for its own profits? Without producing benefits for U.S. soldiers? Admiral Mullen, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff doesn't think so. He has described America's national debt as "the greatest threat to our national security."
Our country is teetering on the abyss. If we're going to succeed in restoring the great traditions of liberty and moral authority, we've got to relearn the history of 9/11.
We must acknowledge the real threats to our quality of life are not "out there." They start right here. And those threats are perpetuated by the myths that are leaders invented that tragic morning.
There is no better time for truth than today. The success of our national security policyand our ability to avoid future wars that are guaranteed to destroy this earthvery well depend on it.
Source: Veterans Today

Susan Lindauer is the author of Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq, which recounts her nightmarish ordeal as the second non-Arab American ever indicted on the Patriot Act, facing secret charges, secret evidence, secret grand jury testimony and threats of indefinite detention.

911 Prediction Revealed at Lindauer Hearing in NYC


19 June 2008

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, D.C.

(June 17, NYC). A surprise development occurred at today's hearing in the case of Susan Lindauer versus the United States. A long time associate of the accused, associate professor of computer science at Toronto's York University, Parke Godfrey, Ph.D., testified that Susan Lindauer predicted an attack on the United States in the southern part of Manhattan. According to his testimony, she said that the attack would be very similar to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Godfrey said that Lindauer made the prediction on several occasions, one as late as August 2001.

The testimony occurred in a hearing on Lindauer's competence to stand trial held before U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Preska, Southern District of New York, in lower Manhattan. On March 11, 2004, Lindauer was arrested for acting as an "unregistered agent" for the nation of Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. Prosecutors have delayed the trial for over four years claiming Lindauer was delusional for asserting that she was a U.S. intelligence asset over a period of nine years, including the period covered by the indictment.

This was Lindauer's first real opportunity to argue her competence to stand trial and deny the delusions claimed by court psychiatrists. Lindauer asserts that she had been a U.S. intelligence asset since working on the Lockerbie case and subsequent antiterrorism efforts.

Appearing for the defense, Dr. Godfrey testified under oath that Lindauer told him of her specific concerns about an attack on the United States. She told him that a "massive" attack would occur in the southern part of Manhattan, involving airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon. The witness said that she mentioned this in the year 2000, which coincided with the Lockerbie trial. And then in 2001, Lindauer also mentioned the anticipated attack in the spring, 2001 and then August 2001. Godfrey said, at that time, Lindauer thought an attack was "imminent" and that it would complete what was started in the 1993 bombing (the original World Trade Center bombing).

After the hearing, Lindauer elaborated that this extreme threat scenario was done in concert with the man she says was one of her CIA handlers, Dr. Richard Fuisz, who has been associated with U.S. intelligence.

Federal prosecutor Edward O'Callaghan tried to diminish the prediction by asking Godfrey if Lindauer presented this as a "prophesy." Godfrey denied hearing that word mentioned in their conversations. He stated that Lindauer used the term "premonition." The prosecution did not challenge Godfrey's testimony that Lindauer made the predictions in the time period given by the witness. After the hearing, Lindauer said that she'd called the Department of Justice Office of Counterterrorism in August of 2001 reporting her fears about an attack.

The Issue of Competency to Stand Trial

After initially evaluating Lindauer, court appointed psychiatrists in New York argued that her clams of innocence and her willingness to produce witnesses to verify those claims were signs of delusional thinking. However, a Maryland based psychiatrist and two psychotherapists with whom Lindauer visited on a regular basis failed to support the notion of delusions or a debilitating mental illness. Lindauer has told federal authorities continuously that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and she offered to prove that in open court.

Prosecutors typically disparage appeals by defendants to delay or avoid trial based on psychological stress or suffering. This case is an exception. The United States Government is the party delaying the trial based on their claims of Lindauer's inability to assist in her own defense.

Today's testimony was limited to what is known as "lay" witnesses. Lindauer's expert witness, a distinguished psychiatrist and academic, will testify at a July 7, 2008 hearing that she's competent to stand trial.

Lindauer triggered today's hearing by refusing to attend court mandated counseling, a court requirement during her periods of release from 11 months of federal detention. In a recent interview in "Scoop," Lindauer said: "Since August, 2007, I have refused to go back [to court mandated counseling]. I told the Court the game is over. Go to trial or drop the charges, which are ridiculous anyway. They don't have a case, and they know it."

More Testimony by Dr. Godfrey and Kelly O'Meara

Dr. Godfrey's testimony contained some other elements of note. Lindauer's defense attorney, Brian Shaughnessy of Washington, DC, asked about Lindauer's personality and behavior. He said that she was "mercurial," subject to periods of joy and sadness in response to the events that she experienced. He also testified that he'd never seen her as having any mental impediments.

Kelly O'Meara was also called to the stand in Lindauer's behalf. O'Meara served as a senior congressional staffer for over two decades. She did investigative work for members of Congress on the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 TWA Flight 800 crash on Long Island Sound in 1996. She's a former investigative reporter for Insight Magazine and the Washington Times and author of Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill, a recent book on the dangers of psychiatric medication.

When examined by the prosecution, O'Meara said that she had no reason to believe that Lindauer had a mental disorder. Prosecutor O'Callaghan then asked if she believed that she was qualified to make that judgment. O'Meara responded affirmatively saying that she could read the official diagnostic manual for mental disorders like anybody else and compare behavior with the list of symptoms provided.

Under questioning by defense attorney Shaughnessy, the witness described an after-work group that met every Thursday over a number of years at Capitol Hill's Hunan Restaurant. This group included Lindauer, 'O'Meara, and lobbyists and staffers who enjoyed talking politics and having a refreshment at the end of the day. O'Meara focused on her long term close friendship with Paul Hoven, who is described by Lindauer as an intelligence operative and one of her handlers.

The O'Meara-Hoven relationship included regular meetings over several years and frequent phone calls. O'Meara mentioned that Hoven enjoyed going to dinner at her sister's home and that she had accompanied Hoven to a shooting visit at the country home of a legendary intelligence figure.

O'Meara was asked if Hoven indicated any relationship with Lindauer. She responded that "I heard about Susan all the time from Paul." She also described him speaking with her frequently at the Thursday night group at the Capitol Hill restaurant.

O'Meara said that after Lindauer was sent to Carswell federal prison facility, O'Meara got a "strange call" form Hoven during which he said, "Susan's crazy." O'Meara said that she'd never heard Hoven make those remarks before Lindauer was sent to the federal prison facility began.

Lindauer's relationship with Hoven is a key part of her defense, with the Thursday night group as one of their frequent points of contact.

On cross examination, prosecutor O'Callaghan asked O'Meara if she would be surprised if Hoven had reported only a very few meetings with her throughout his entire life.

Visibly angry, O'Meara responded by saying, "I would be insulted."

Defense counsel Shaughnessy produced two witnesses, one a computer science professor and the other a reporter and congressional staffer. Together they provided the framework for Lindauer's claim that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and "lay" testimony that she did not impress either witness as having any type of mental or emotional problem.

The prosecution presented no lay witnesses.

After the hearing was over, Lindauer spoke to the press. She said, "I've been left out to dry" by those in the government who employed her services as an intelligence asset. She described efforts that she made to develop a major contact in Iraq to help with U.S. antiterrorism efforts.

Lindauer's next competency hearing is scheduled for July 7, 2008 before Judge Preska.

END

Previous"Scoop" coverage of the Susan Lindauer case:
American Cassandra: Susan Lindauer's Story by Michael Collins 17 October 2007
Bush Political Prisoner Gets her Day in Court by Michael Collins June 11, 2008
An Exclusive Interview with Bush Political Prisoner Susan Lindauer by Michael Collins June 2008

Source URL: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.htm...S00263.htm

Susan Lindauer Blows the Whistle Again
Written by Michael Collins
Monday, 02 March 2009
Former Accused Iraqi Agent Reveals Facts about 9/11 Warning

The feds dropped all charges against Susan Lindauer, and now she's talking freely. Michael Collins's interview with Lindauer covers the warnings provided to the Bush-Cheney administration prior to 9/11. It presents entirely new information from an angel that will add substantially to knowledge that terrible attack.

March 2, 2009 Washington, DC (electionfraudnews.com) I first wrote about Susan Lindauer's struggle against the Bush-Cheney regime in October 2007, "American Cassandra: Susan Lindauer's Story." This was initially published in "Scoop" Independent Media (complete series) and carried by a wide variety of concerned Internet news sites and blogs. This interview follows the full dismissal of charges against her just before President Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009. This is the first in depth interview that Lindauer has offered regarding 9/11. Below is part one of the interview.

I asked Ms. Lindauer to make her own statement about why she's willing to go into detail now about 9/11 and the governments handling of pre-9/11 intelligence.
For five years, I was the poster child for President Bush's retaliation against Americans who opposed his War Policy in Iraq. In March, 2004 the Justice Department indicted me for acting as an "unregistered Iraqi Agent" (not espionage), because I delivered a prescient letter to my second cousin, Andy Card, former Chief of Staff to President Bush, warning of the dire consequences of War.

More dangerously, I had decided to talk. In February, 2004 I approached the senior staff of Senators Trent Lott and John McCain and asked to testify in front of the new blue ribbon Presidential Commission on Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence. Within a month, I was astounded to wake up one morning to hear FBI agents pounding on the door of my house in Maryland with an arrest warrant.

The indictment called me "Symbol Susan." It was a bizarre notation unsupported by any evidence or action in the indictment. It did however have one crucial purpose-to communicate a warning that anybody breaking ranks from the Bush White House should expect to be brutally crushed like I was.

To speak the truth under President George Bush was the worst crime of all. It was treason.

But what exactly was the U.S. government trying to hide?

The answer is more far reaching than you would expect. In the first article of this series written and edited with the help of Michael Collins, we talk about the 9/11 warning that my team delivered to the Office of Counter-Terrorism at the Justice Department in August, 2001.

For those who think you've heard the whole story of 9/11, you might be surprised.

Susan Lindauer, March 1, 2009

Interview of Susan Lindauer by Michael Collins


Michael Collins: What confirmation can you provide that you actually warned about 9/11 several months before the attack?


Susan Lindauer: On June 17, 2008 the Court granted the Defense our first and only pre-trial evidentiary hearing in five years, which allowed my attorney to begin confirming that my relationships with my intelligence handlers were fully authentic and involved counter-terrorism.


Dr. Parke Godfrey, an associate professor of computer science at York University in Toronto, testified under oath that starting in the year 2000, and several times in the spring and summer of 2001, I warned him that we expected a major attack on the southern part of Manhattan, and that the attack would encompass the World Trade Center. Dr. Godfrey assured the Court that he had told the FBI about my 9/11 warning during a sit down interview in Toronto in September, 2004, which was jointly attended by a member of the Canadian Royal Mountie Police.

It's worth noting that Dr. Godfrey is a scientist and a precise, deliberate and methodical thinker, who chooses his words carefully. In style, he's been compared to Dr. Spock of Star Trek fame. He does Leonard Nimoy proud. He would make an outstanding witness at any congressional hearing.

Quoting from his testimony in June 2008, he said that I told him, "A massive attack would occur in the southern part of Manhattan that would involve airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon."

He testified that I told him "the attack would complete the cycle of the first bombing of the World Trade Center. It would finish what was started in the 1993 (World Trade Center) attack."

Dr. Godfrey testified that I first mentioned the possibility of an attack in the year 2000, which coincided with the Lockerbie Trial. Then throughout the spring and summer of 2001, I described the threat much more specifically as "involving airplanes" and the World Trade Center.

In August 2001, I told him the attack was "imminent."

He testified that I urged him to stay out of New York City.

Collins: What was your background that made it possible for you to issue this 9/11 warning?


Lindauer: Throughout the 1990s, the U.S. used me as a back-channel to Libyan and Iraqi officials at the United Nations, seeking to leverage my anti-sanctions and anti-war activism to establish contacts within nations under sanctions, in support of anti-terrorism goals. I established contact with the Libyan Embassy in May, 1995, for the purpose of starting negotiations for the Lockerbie Trial. In that capacity, I met with Libyan diplomats approximately 150 times over the next eight years. I established contacts at the Iraqi Embassy in August, 1996. In addition to providing a back channel for terrorism intelligence from Baghdad, I conducted preliminary talks to resume the weapons inspections with Iraq's Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Saeed Hasan, and other senior Iraqi officials. Our purpose was to guarantee that Iraq would agree to rigorous U.S. standards for transparency in the inspections process before the matter went to the U.N. Security Council.

It must be emphasized that all of my work was heavily supervised by handlers from the U.S. Intelligence Community. And most unusually, from our first meetings, Iraqi and Libyan diplomats fully understood my motivations to assist in facilitating an end to sanctions, and that I would function as a back channel to contacts tied to the United States government. We wanted diplomats to use me for that purpose. There was no deceit involved.

Collins: Who was your CIA handler?


Lindauer: Dr. Richard Fuisz (FUZE) is the most fascinating individual I have encountered in my life.

Dr. Fuisz was a major CIA operative in Syria and Lebanon in the 1980s. Dr. Fuisz coordinated the hostage rescue of Terry Anderson et al out of Beirut, Lebanon. His team located their make-shift prisons and called in the Delta Force for a daring raid. He testified before Congress about U.S. corporations that supplied Iraq with weapons systems before the first Gulf War. He got outed as CIA by Damascus after stealing the blueprints for Syria's brand new telecommunications system.

Finally, Dr. Fuisz claims to know the real story of Lockerbie, including the identities of the terrorist masterminds, whom he insisted were not Libyan at all. It was he who suggested that somebody needed to approach Libya about the Lockerbie Trial. An individual who passionately opposed sanctions and recognized possible terrorist scenarios, he thought, would be ideal to start up the talks.

That was me. Despite my ordeal, I am extremely proud of our work together. I remain deeply grateful that Dr. Fuisz invited me to embark on this extraordinary adventure inside the most interesting Middle Eastern embassies at the United Nations. I loved every moment of it.

Collins: What first triggered your concern about a possible attack involving airplanes and the World Trade Center? How did Lockerbie figure into the 9/11 warning?


Lindauer: The Lockerbie Trial in the year 2000 got us thinking of what the next terrorist scenario would look like. The bombings of Pan Am 103 in December, 1988 and UTA (French airlines) in September, 1989 were the last attacks involving airplanes prior to September 11, 2001. Our team worried openly that the Trial of the two accused Libyans would inspire a sort of "tribute attack" to the success of Lockerbie.

The problem is that while most Americans have refused to accept that Libya's man, Mr. Megraghi was innocent of the crime, it happens to be true. And terrorists groups know that. They know very well who was responsible for planting the bomb on Pan Am 103, and they know that those individuals have never been brought to justice. Indeed, throughout the Trial, when the U.S. made such a poor showing of forensic evidence against the accused Libyans, that U.S. failure was gossip throughout the Middle East. As Dr. Fuisz used to say, terrorist groups thought that for all the mighty resources of U.S. Intelligence, the U.S. was either too stupid to catch them. Or we were afraid because the real terrorists are "too big."

Either of those beliefs stood to create a huge and irresistible provocation to the younger generation of jihadis. It was an easy step to anticipate that younger terrorists would be inspired to launch a tribute attack to the "heroes" who came before them. On that basis, we drew up an extreme threat scenario that the next major attack would most likely involve airplane hijackings or airplane bombings.

That is exactly what happened by the way. Back in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden called Ahmed Jibril "a hero" and "the greatest fighter against Israel who ever lived."

Sure enough, my own extensive sources in the Middle East have repeatedly told me that Ahmed Jibril was the true mastermind of Lockerbie-And so we find the 9/11 puzzle fits together exactly.

Collins: When did your concern jump from "hypothetical scenario" to the belief that an attack was actively being planned?


Lindauer: I remember it all vividly. In April, 2001 I received a summons to visit Dr. Fuisz at his office in Virginia. We met almost weekly anyway. On this occasion, he phoned my home and asked me to come right away. He also inquired how quickly I was making my next trip to New York to see the Embassies. He wanted to talk to me before I left, and he wanted me to go soon.

Of course I visited him immediately. Dr. Fuisz demanded that I must warn diplomats at the Iraqi and Libyan Missions that their nations would suffer a major military offensive if it was discovered that either had possessed intelligence about possible airplane attacks, and failed to notify the United States through my back channel.

I was reluctant to deliver such a harsh message. I have always been an anti-war activist. That's a major reason for my success in dealing with the Arabs, because they appreciate the consistency of my opposition to violence on both sides. So, on my next trip to New York, I soft pedaled Dr. Fuisz's warning. I requested that diplomats send messages to Baghdad and Tripoli seeking intelligence on possible airplane attacks. But I made no threats of violent reprisal against them.

When I got home to Washington, I met with Dr. Fuisz, who demanded to know how diplomats had responded to his threat. I had to admit that I had stopped short of actually threatening them. But I assured him that I had requested their cooperation.

At that point, Dr. Fuisz became enraged. As I recall, in all our years together, there was never any other time that he lost his temper and yelled at me. He stormed up and down the room. He demanded that I must return to New York immediately, and I must tell diplomats "the United States will bomb them into the Stone Age, worse than they've ever been bombed before, if they don't help us identify any terrorist conspiracies involving airplanes. They will lose everything. We will destroy them." He was not pacified until I promised to deliver that message exactly as he had communicated it. He expressed great satisfaction when I promised that I would make sure they understood the warning came from him, not me, backed by forces above him.

Dr. Fuisz was determined the Arabs should know the threat was deadly serious.

Right then I knew terrorists were actively plotting an attack. This was more than checking our trap lines, or putting out inquiries. Something was moving. Dr. Fuisz was firing back to stop cooperation.

Reinforcing that tension, throughout the summer of 2001, Dr. Fuisz continued to prod and push hard for any fragment of intelligence from Iraq or Libya involving airplane hijackings or airplane bombings. He urged me not to filter intelligence or test its accuracy before informing him. During numerous meetings, he tried to explain how urgently he needed to collect even fragments of intelligence, whether it appeared to make sense to me or not. He begged me to hold nothing back.

That's when I knew that something bigger was going on. Dr. Fuisz was already onto it. Again and again, our talks turned to airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings in a reprise of the 1993 World Trade Center attack. It sounds uncanny but we all understood exactly what was going to happen.

In turn, I shared those fears and dangers with other friends and family, including Dr. Parke Godfrey.

All of us took the danger very seriously. Our team was strong, proactive and fiercely protective of American security.

Collins: Ultimately, did Libya or Iraq provide any intelligence regarding the attack?


Lindauer: No, they did not. After the attack, it became clear that neither country could have been party to the conspiracy. Gadhaffi and bin Laden hated each other. Back in 1995, Libya was the first country in the world to warn Interpol about Osama, and urge an international warrant for his arrest. Saddam's government hated him, too. Baghdad considered Osama's extreme brand of Sunni fundamentalism to pose a serious destabilizing threat to Iraq's moderate Sunni elite. Osama was a wrecking ball to Arab governments. They all despised him.

In fact, we pushed Iraq so hard for intelligence in the months before 9/11 that afterwards Iraqi diplomats aggressively challenged our U.S. claims of ignorance. A couple of diplomats put it to me bluntly: "Obviously you knew it was coming, because you kept telling us about it. So why didn't you stop it? Why didn't you do something before this, instead of blaming us now? You should be blaming yourselves."


No, even before the 9/11 attack, I deduced that Dr. Fuisz's advance intelligence was derived from an entirely different source. It just happened to be one I had not expected.


Collins: All right. Who did you warn about this attack?


Lindauer: By early August, 2001, our team was gravely concerned that an attack was "imminent."

When Robert Mueller was nominated to be Director of the FBI, we dallied with going to his confirmation hearings to put a buzz in the ears of congressional staffers about our fears.

Instead, Dr. Fuisz instructed me to telephone U. S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's office.

In mid-August, I phoned the staff of his private office at the Justice Department, which probably consists of about 20 people. Identifying myself as an asset covering Libya and Iraq, I made a formal request that his private office issue an emergency alert throughout the department for any fragment of intelligence pertaining to possible airplane hijackings or airplane bombings. I explained that we expected a major attack involving that scenario, and we urgently needed cooperation from all other agencies.

Ashcroft's office told me to contact the Office of Counter-Terrorism at the Justice Department, and repeat what I had just told them. I did so immediately.

Collins: What happened after that?


Lindauer: I didn't stop there. Most Americans would be stunned to know that in mid-August, 2001, our team was so convinced a 9/11 style attack was imminent that I visited my second cousin, Andy Card at his house in Arlington, Virginia, so that we could warn him.

I parked on the street and waited in my car, chain smoking for almost two hours. Occasionally, I could see neighbors peering out of their windows. In my head, I rehearsed what I would tell the police if they showed up to investigate this strange car parked outside the house of the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States.

Unhappily, he did not return home, and I finally left without sharing our fears.

Driving away, I remember feeling that I was making the greatest mistake of my life. Throughout all these years, it is one of my few regrets.

Collins: Who appears to have been Dr. Fuisz's other source on 9/11?

Lindauer: Dr. Fuisz never formally revealed his source to me. But within about 30 minutes after airplanes struck the Twin Towers, he blurted something to me over the phone.

He told me the Israeli Mossad had advance warning about the attack. As I recall, he said it before the buildings collapsed.

He asked me if I thought it was "an accident that a man and woman happened to be waiting on the sidewalk with a video camera, ready to record the attack." He was highly agitated. He challenged me "how often a bystander has a camera cued up to record a car accident?"

Then he said, "Those are Israeli agents. It's not an accident. They knew this attack was coming. And they were waiting for it."

I was outraged and shocked by the images on the television. I shot back something to the effect of, "You mean, we've been looking for an attack all this time! And the Israelis knew about it? And they didn't tell us?" In retrospect, outside the passion of that particular moment, the Israelis may have told us much more than Richard Fuisz may have known.

Immediately the phone line cut dead between us.

I called him right back. Very calmly, he said, "Susan, we must never talk about that again."

There are a couple more details regarding this Mossad team with the video camera. Dr. Fuisz was able to announce their identities before the media publicized who they are. The attack was so new when he said it, that it seemed to me that he already knew about them.

I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

[URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scoop.co.nz%2Fstories%2FHL0710%2FS00266.htm&ei=Ay-CTuKgHsfNswbq5oyuDg&usg=AFQjCNELbqgCMMamcsEoGumIMpsrly9cGQ"]American Cassandra - Susan Lindauer's Story
[/URL]Wednesday, 17 October 2007, 2:43 pm
Article: Michael Collins


American Cassandra -
Susan Lindauer's Story


"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products
in August" said' Andrew Card, center, former Bush Chief of Staff, referring
to the public relaitons campaign to attack Iraq. 9/2002
Part 1 of a 2 part series
By Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, D.C.

Above all, you must realize that if you go ahead with this invasion, Osama bin Laden will triumph, rising from his grave or seclusion. His network will be swollen with fresh recruits, and other charismatic individuals will seek to build upon his model, multiplying those networks. And the United States will have delivered the death blow to itself. Using your own act of war, Osama and his cohort will irrevocably divide the hearts and minds of the Arab Street from moderate governments in Islamic countries that have been holding back the tide. Power to the people, what we call "democracy," will secure the rise of fundamentalists. Susan Lindauer's last letter to Andrew Card, January 6, 2003*

Susan Lindauer sent her eleventh and last letter on the Iraqi political situation to then Bush chief of staff Andrew Card on January 6, 2003, just two months before General Franks gave the command to invade on March 20, 2003. She'd sent ten other letters on Iraq to Card, her second cousin, over a two year period.

In her final letter she made a prophetic plea to head off the war. Through Lindauer's back channel contacts at the Iraqi United Nations mission, Lindauer said that she'd gathered a great deal of information. She had good reasons to believe that the Iraqis were ready to offer huge concessions on inspectors and on other United States demands.

As the opening quotation shows, she correctly predicted what other knowledgeable observers believed. While the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan had al Qaeda on its knees, an Iraqi military defeat would lead to a civil chaos. This would provide the basis for a resurrection of bin Laden's operation and then revive the al Qaeda terrorist risk to the United States.

Lindauer was arrested on March 17, 2004, fifteen months after the last letter to Andy Card and two years after the trip to Baghdad referenced in the indictment. She was charged with "conspiring to act and acting as an unregistered agent of the government of Iraq" and "forbidden financial transactions" with Iraq totaling $10,000 relating to those acts. The charges cover the period of October, 1999 through February 2004.

She denies acting as an Iraqi agent and says that she'd been recruited by the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency to open a back channel for contact with Middle Eastern nations that lacked formal diplomatic ties the U.S. She asserts that CIA was overseeing her contacts with Iraq and that the U.S. government was fully informed of her activities.

She was very specific when she said that she had no knowledge of or contact with the two Iraqis named in her indictment. In his final ruling on the case, Judge Mukasey observed that:

It bears emphasis here that it was never the government's theory that Lindauer participated in such conduct, or indeed that she even knew the Al-Anbuke brothers. Rather, she and they were charged together only because both allegedly conspired with IIS. Judge Michael B. Mukasey, Opinion and Order, September 6, 2006.

At her preliminary hearing, she was remanded for trial in federal court, Southern District, New York, and placed on $500,000 bail

Another 18 months passed without action until the prosecution requested that Lindauer undergo a psychiatric evaluation. The prosecution argued that she was unfit to stand trial for two reasons: she believed that she was not guilty and she was therefore unable to contribute to her defense since she didn't understand that she might be convicted. Her failure to accept guilt by denying what the prosecution called delusions somehow proved mental incompetence.

Based on the psychiatric evaluation, Judge Mukasey ordered Lindauer to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Federal Medical Center (Carswell FMC), Ft. Worth, located on the grounds of Carswell Air Force Base. Lindauer reports considerable distress at confinement and the condition of her fellow female inmates.

Lindauer has consistently maintained her innocence throughout this entire affair. After seven months at FMC Carswell, she had a hearing with Judge Mukasey in early May 2006. The psychiatrists at the federal prison facility wanted to force her to take psychotropic medication, a position strongly supported by the U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case. She vigorously objected to this, which was the basis for the May hearing. The government's rationale for forced medication and the treatment at Carswell FMC will be discussed in more depth in the second part of this series.

Rather than being sent back to the prison facility, she spent four months at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. Finally, on Sept. 8, 2006 she was released by order of Judge Mukasey. He flatly denied the U.S. Attorney's request for forced medication, noting contradictory opinions on diagnosis and poor support for the efficacy of the medication recommended by court appointed and prosecution experts.

His opinion and order implied that there was not much of case against her: "There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have." Opinion and Order, Judge Michael B. Mukasey, Sept. 6, 2006

The Judge ordered that Lindauer be released from jail. She remains free to this day. Through former U.S. Attorney Brian Schaunnessy of Washington, D.C., she is seeking a trial on the charges levied and sees that as a public forum to verify her story and clear her name.

Susan Lindauer's Story

After seeing an article I wrote on Attorney General nominee Mukasey, Susan Lindauer emailed Jeff Tiedrich, publisher of the political web site that carried the story. She complimented my analysis of Mukasey, which had mentioned her case. I received the email, contacted her, and requested an interview. She agreed.

Susan Lindauer and I met on two occasions for a total of about six hours. In addition, there was an additional two hours of phone contact to assure that I accurately represented her story. She says this is the first time anyone contacted her for an in depth interview on her story and experience.

She was engaging, articulate, and energetic during the interviews and follow up calls. In this article, I present her story as she told it to me. In part two of the series, I cover her confinement at FMC Carswell, examine how the initial round of her case was handled, including Judge Mukasey's dismissive remarks about the merits of the case against her. I will also present information from individuals who support her character and knowledge of Lockerbie and Iraq and offer some speculation on motives and handling of her arrest.

What follows is neither a brief in favor of her case, nor is it a fishing expedition to generate cheap shots regarding her claims. It's simply her story.

Susan Lindauer seeks a trial on the charges to prove her innocence.

She says that:

She worked for United States intelligence to create back channel communication with key Middle Eastern states and all of her actions were under the supervision of U.S. intelligence.

She was recruited by U.S. intelligence to perform this function in 1994 due to her anti sanctions position and the belief that the targeted states would find someone with her position and contacts appealing.

She made significant contributions through her U.N. diplomatic contacts with Libya for the hand over of accused Lockerbie bombers to Scottish authorities. After Lockerbie, she worked as a back channel to Iraq on resuming weapons inspection.

She is innocent of all charges filed.

Lindauer reports that her role as a back channel operative for the U.S. resulted from a 1994 meeting with Dr. Richard Fuisz in Chantilly, Virginia. He approached Lindauer who was then on the staff of Representative Ron Wyden (D-OR), now a U.S. Senator. She says that Fuisz, reportedly a CIA operative, wanted to get out information on terrorist threats from Syria and its proxies who he said were responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. Fuisz claimed that he could identify the specific culprits behind the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 bombing.

She noted that her knowledge of Arab culture and her positions as an anti sanction, pro peace advocate positioned her for service as a conduit to nations hostile to United States. This put her in a position, "to open a back channel to receive terrorism information from those nations under sanctions."


Image Source

Lockerbie, Scotland and the Bombing of Pan Am 103

The Clinton administration was interested in using her as an entrée to communicate with Libya officials, according to Lindauer. Her specific task was to help obtain the hand over of two suspects in the Lockerbie bombing to stand trial for the destruction of the Pan Am flight and deaths of 259 passengers and 11 Lockerbie citizens

Lindauer described playing an instrumental role in negotiating the handover of the two suspected bombers from Libya through her Libyan contacts at the U.N. mission. She performed the liaison role through the Libyan mission at the U.N. As a result of her work and other efforts, she reports that Libya turned over two male suspects, al-Megrahi and Fhimah, to Scottish authorities. They were indicted and tried for the bombing and 270 deaths. Scottish prosecutors convicted Al Megrahi but not Fhimah.

During the lead up to the trial, Lindauer had serious questions about the guilt of the Libyans that she helped secure for trial. She says, "Other Arab contacts told me that Mohammed Abu Talb, Abu Nidal, in addition to Ahmed Jibril were the key to this awful crime."

In 1998, she provided U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan with a deposition containing information that she obtained from Dr. Richard Fuisz. This was prior to Annan's visit to Libya which Lindauer says was for a meeting to discuss the Lockerbie trial with Gadaffi. In the deposition, she offered this: "(Fuisz) says freely that he knows first hand that Libya was not involved in any capacity whatsoever. It's my understanding that he can provide further details regarding his part in the investigation, or details identifying the true criminals in this case."

However, Fuisz was the subject of a 1990's gag order and required specific permission from the U.S. in order to give a sealed deposition for the Lockerbie trial.

Lindauer's statement on Lockerbie caught the attention of the Scotland's Sunday Herald:

[In 1994] One month before a court order was served on him (Fuisz) by the US government gagging him from speaking on the grounds of national security, he spoke to US congressional aide Susan Lindauer, telling her he knew the identities of the Lockerbie bombers and claiming they were not Libyan. Sunday Herald May 28, 2000

The Herald discussed her role in negotiations with Libya:

Congressional aide Lindauer, who was involved in early negotiations over the Lockerbie trial, claims Fuisz made "unequivocal statements to me that he has first-hand knowledge about the Lockerbie case". In her affidavit, she goes on: "Dr Fuisz has told me that he can identify who orchestrated and executed the bombing. Dr Fuisz has said that he can confirm absolutely that no Libyan national was involved in planning or executing the bombing of Pan Am 103, either in any technical or advisory capacity whatsoever." Sunday Herald May 28, 2000

Her position was not that different than an analysis offered in Time Magazine in 2002. Both she and Time speculate that Ahmed Jibril, a Palestinian resistance leader allied with Syria, was responsible for the bombing. Time magazine even suggested that the terrorist act was a "hit" on a special U.S. military group seeking to free American hostages held in Lebanon.

Just recently, Time ran another article on findings by investigators raising factual questions that cast doubt on the guilty verdict of the one suspect actually convicted in the case.

On June 28, 2007, Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) made a referral of the al Megrahi conviction for further review due to a critical flaw in the case. Evidence from a Maltese shopkeeper that helped convict al Megrahi was accepted by trial judges without a "reasonable basis". The SCCRC is empowered to refer flawed decisions to Scotland's Supreme Court, which must hear the case.

Just recently, October 2, 2007, The Scotsman reported that "Fresh doubt has been cast over the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber after it emerged a document containing vital evidence about the bomb timer has never been shown to the defense."

In addition, The Scotsman, Oct. 6, 2007, reported that two key witnesses, the Maltese shopkeeper and the head of the company that manufactured the timing devise for the bomb, were offered $2 million and $4 million respectively by U.S. officials to tilt their testimony for a conviction of al Megrahi.

Lindauer said that her work on Lockerbie started in 1995, "I was being used aggressively at this point for positive things." She didn't see any inconsistency between her activism and her work with the intelligence community. She opposed both sanctions by the United States and violence by terrorist states.

Thus, by her logic, her work for U.S. intelligence was no different than her activism the goals were the same. She said, "From the perspective of my life, I was able to work against sanctions" and also work against terrorism emanating from rogue states. Noting the global reach of the events and the stakes, she now says, "This work makes you know how small you are."

An Opening to Iraq

After Lockerbie, Lindauer says her work focused exclusively on Iraq, although she'd started contact with Iraqi diplomats at the U.N. in August, 1996. She followed her previous approach and sought out diplomats at the Iraq mission to the U.N. Her assignment was to help gain a resumption of weapons inspections based on the rigorous standards outlined by the U.S. She also made a trip to Iraq one year before the U.S. invasion.

During 2000, Lindauer began her efforts to cultivate Iraqi contacts for better relations with the U.S. She described an extraordinary opportunity that might have changed the entire direction of U.S. - Iraq relations. As the secular dictator of an Arab state, Hussein was not fond of Islamic terrorists. Lindauer reported to her U.S. contacts that the Iraq government would welcome an F.B.I. taskforce into Baghdad. She reported further, that "The F.B.I. would be able to interview witnesses and make arrests." Further, she says that:

Iraq also offered banking records and proof of financial transfers that would prove Middle Eastern involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing and the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

The program met with a frosty reception from the newly installed Bush administration. Lindauer said, "I was told that the new administration was evaluating its position on Iraq, in light of collapsing international support for sanctions." There was no action on the plan. In fact, based on what we know now, improved relations with Iraq were not on the agenda from the beginning of the Bush-Cheney era.

This leads to the second phase of her activities regarding Iraq, the events that ended with Lindauer's arrest, indictment, and incarceration at FMC Carswell, Ft. Worth, Texas.

Cassandra

A year before the invasion, in March 2002, Lindauer took a trip to Iraq to meet with government officials. She smiled broadly as she affirmed the value of that mission: "It would be regrettable if the US government lied about its knowledge of this trip." She paused and smiled again, "We can prove their total awareness."

Lindauer sent 11 letters to Card staring in 2001 leading her to pose this question: "If he wanted to discourage me to stop talking to the Iraqis, all he had to do was say so."

In the final letter sent to Card, Lindauer delivered her accurate prediction of the results of the invasion she worked to avoid a disaster in Iraq fueling resistance groups hostile to the U.S. along with a revival of al Qaeda.

She accurately estimated the true value of the exile groups cultivated by the Bush administration and, in the case of Ahmed Chalabi, used almost exclusively by New York Times writer Judith Miller as the basis for her discredited claims in New York Times that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Once U.S. bombing starts, the Iraqi exiles will have no credibility as leaders. None whatsoever. They will be hated as pawns of the United States, and my God, let me tell you Arabs can hate. A U.S. victory will never be sweet for long. Lindauer letter to Card, January 6, 2003*

She argued passionately, with dramatic emphasis, that there was a deep well of hostility towards the U.S. as a result of deaths caused by U.S. supported U.N. sanctions from 1990 through March 22, 2003. This is a story not well covered in the U.S. press but one with palpable results for the people of Iraq.

That hatred has kindled deeply because of the sanctions, Andy. Sanctions have killed 1.7 million human beings, including almost one million little children. Stop and think. What would an American father do to the man who killed three of his children, once that father could finally lay hands on the aggressor? Would he throw candy in the streets? No, he'd beat him to death and stab him 100 times until his arms were sore. And then he'd look for the next man, stalking until the right moment. In Baghdad, I met a man who lost 8 members of his immediate family in one year. That's right, eight dead in ONE year. Multiply that by 20 million people." Lindauer letter to Card, January 6, 2003*

While the Department of Justice questions Lindauer's role as a cooperator with U.S. Intelligence and a question was raised about her ability to "influence anybody," there can be little doubt about her analysis and predictions concerning post-war Iraq. Just in this final letter, she nailed down the myth of the exiles and their role in building a new Iraq, the extreme hostility of Iraqis toward the U.S. presence and personnel, and the resurrection of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Whatever her sources and inspiration, Susan Lindauer is truly an American Cassandra.

FOOTNOTE:

* Susan Lindauer's last letter to Andrew Card, January 6, 2003

Some of her analysis [as opposed to facts she witnessed] are to my thinking a tad naive and seen somewhat through intelligence / National Security glasses. That said, I don't yet see any reason to doubt the kernel of her important information - that which she was held under the Patriot Act for and they tried to wipe her mind of with drugs - Foreknowledge [written LARGE] by many agencies of the USG well before 911! :wavey: If she has nothing more to tell than that........she's done more than most can. Her book contains documentation of what she knows and what she says. I've not yet read it. It is available as a book and as an e-book.

The Hornet's Nest Kicked Back A Review of Susan Lindauer's Extreme Prejudice
December 22nd, 2010

Michael Collins


Five years after her indictment, Susan Lindauer never got the trial she repeatedly requested. On September 15, 2009, Assistant US Attorney O'Callaghan convinced US District Court Judge Loretta Preska that Lindauer was not mentally competent to stand trial. Judge Preska dismissed the case at the request of O'Callaghan's replacement on January 15, 2010. This was done against Lindauer's wishes and ignored credible witnesses who testified to her role as an intelligence asset.

Fiction delivers justice that reality rarely approaches. Victims endure suffering and emerge as victors after overcoming incredible challenges. Stieg Larsson's gripping Millennium Trilogy weaves a story of revenge and triumphs for Lizbeth Salander, locked away in a mental institution and sexually abused for years. When Salander got out and threatened to go public about a high level sexual exploitation ring, the perpetrators sought to lock her up again. In the final installment, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, Salander found some justice. (Image)

Susan Lindauer's autobiography, Extreme Prejudice, tells a story with certain broad similarities. In her case, however, the hornet's nest kicked back with a real vengeance. After over a decade as a U.S intelligence asset, Lindauer was privy to information about pre war Iraq that threatened to serve up a huge embarrassment to the Bush-Cheney regime. She hand delivered a letter to senior Bush administration officials in hopes of averting what she predicted would be the inevitably tragic 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Those officials, unnamed in the indictment, were her second cousin, then White House chief of staff Andy Card, and Colin Powell.

After the invasion failed to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Lindauer went to Congress offering to testify about the quality of prewar intelligence. In early 2004, she met with staffers in the offices of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Trent Lott (R-MS) in February 2004. Shortly after those visits and other offers to testify in public, Lindauer was indicted on March 11 for serving as an "unregistered agent" for pre war Iraq and promptly arrested. .

The Crime That Wasn't

And what did Lindauer do as an alleged unregistered foreign agent, a charge the government was never willing to try in open court? According to then US District Court Judge Michael B. Mukasey, who handled the case for a period, the "high-water mark" of government's case was based entirely on the letter that Lindauer delivered to her second cousin, then White House chief of staff, Andrew Card. Lindauer had written Card on at least ten other occasions since the 2001 Bush Inauguration. She wrote:

"Above all, you must realize that if you go ahead with this invasion, Osama bin Laden will triumph, rising from his grave or seclusion. His network will be swollen with fresh recruits, and other charismatic individuals will seek to build upon his model, multiplying those networks. And the United States will have delivered the death blow to itself. Using your own act of war, Osama and his cohort will irrevocably divide the hearts and minds of the Arab Street from moderate governments in Islamic countries that have been holding back the tide. Power to the people, what we call "democracy," will secure the rise of fundamentalists." Susan Lindauer's last letter to Andrew Card, January 6, 2003 in American Cassandra: Susan Lindauer's Story, Oct 17, 2007

This letter was based on extensive contacts with Iraqi diplomats at the United Nations in New York and a prewar trip that she took to Iraq with the knowledge of her intelligence handlers.

Before she could stand trial, in 2005, Judge Mukasey accepted the opinions of court appointed experts that Lindauer might be delusional and ordered her locked her up for an extended psychiatric evaluation and observation. She was placed in the Carswell federal prison facility at the very secure Carswell Air Force Base in Ft. Worth, Texas.

Mukasey's conclusion was contradicted by evidence not considered (see below) covering fourteen months (March 2004-April 2005) of court ordered evaluation and psychological services in Maryland that consistently reported that Lindauer was functioning well and not delusional. The order allowed 120 days, the legal maximum detention period. She was at detained for seven months at Carswell and another four months in a Manhattan lockup.

When Lindauer refused to take strong psychotropic medication as part of her evaluation, Assistant US Attorney Ed O'Callaghan sought a court order from Judge Mukasey to force the medication on her either orally or by injection. Remarkably, it appears that Mukasey was not informed that the professional staff at Carswell had recommended against forced medication. Based on his detailed opinion and order of September 6, 2006 denying the Assistant US Attorney's request, Mukasey was also not aware of direct evidence from Carswell professional staff that Lindauer's behavior was well with the normal range, particularly considering the circumstances.

Five years after her indictment, Susan Lindauer never got the trial she repeatedly requested. On September 15, 2009, Assistant US Attorney O'Callaghan convinced US District Court Judge Loretta Preska that Lindauer was not mentally competent to stand trial. Judge Preska dismissed the case at the request of O'Callaghan's replacement on January 15, 2010. This was done against Lindauer's wishes and ignored credible witnesses who testified to her role as an intelligence asset.

Lindauer's second attorney, Brian Shaughnessy, a former federal prosecutor in Judge John J. Sirica's court and distinguished Washington, DC defense counsel, noted that this was the only case that he'd ever heard of in which prosecutors argued that a defendant was mentally incompetent to stand trial

O'Callaghan went on to serve as legal advisor for then Governor Sarah Palin's scandal defense team in Alaska. Judge Preska received an appointment from President Bush to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit six days before ruling that Lindauer was incompetent to stand trial. Andy Card pursued a successful career in the private sector. And Colin Powell retained is good name and status despite misleading the United Nations about Iraq's alleged chemical weapons programs and his active participation in "choreographed" torture sessions for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and lesser known detention venues.

Despite her efforts and willingness to go public for the benefit of the country, Lindauer was systematically attacked by the federal government and denied her repeated requests for an open trial in federal court. For her, there were no movies or best sellers, no award or promotions, and no happy endings. She was left at the side of the road with only her story and evidence to challenge the charges that the government steadfastly refused to try in open court for over five years.

Lindauer's case was so strong that her second and final attorney, Brian Shaughnessy, took the extraordinary step of issuing a statement that her claims were supported by the extensive evidence that he reviewed. He said, "I … assure you that Ms. Lindauer's story is shocking, but true. It's an important story of this new political age, post-9/11." Her uncle, attorney Thayer Lindauer, offered an affidavit on his research which confirmed Lindauer's role as a US intelligence asset.

What Were They Trying to Hide and How Did They Hide It

Lindauer's career as a US intelligence asset and back channel to Iraq first came to light in 1998. She released an affidavit for the Lockerbie bombing trial recounting information provided to her by the man she described as her CIA handler, Richard Fuisz. The claim was that the bombings were carried out by Syrian operatives, not the accused Libyans. Given Fuisz's reputed high level intelligence skills, this was a major event covered in the press. Despite the publicity and controversy surrounding the affidavit, Lindauer's association with Fuisz continued. She was never charged or even reprimanded by the government for her role in the affair.

But when Lindauer was willing to go public with her work on Iraq with Fuisz and another reported intelligence handler, Paul Hoven, she was indicted for giving one letter to Andrew Card, a letter which proved to be very much in line with of the best advice the Bush administration received on the ill conceived, deadly invasion and occupation of Iraq. That was what the administration was so intent on hide hiding.

The information Lindauer would have released, as told in Extreme Prejudice, concerned her work with Fuisz in the months prior to 9/11 in which Fuisz and his team provided early warning about the attacks on the World Trade Center. She would have revealed Iraq's willingness to turn over terrorists to the FBI and about her contact providing information on al Qaeda's financial structure and funding.

The vehicle to silence Lindauer was the indictment as an unregistered foreign agent, despite the flimsy basis for the charge. Once indicted, the newly crafted Patriot Act was the clincher. The act allows charges to be levied without specifics listed in an indictment or known to the defendant. In fact, under the act, the defendant's attorney may not have access to the charges unless certain security requirements are met.

In Lindauer's case, her attorney had a secret briefing with US intelligence officials. Just as the Patriot Act allows, the occurrence and the content of that meeting were never revealed to Lindauer. Her first attorney, Samuel Talkin, had a met with US intelligence officials shortly after the defense psychologist, Sanford L. Drob, PhD, conducted a two hour interview with Lindauer (report reviewed by the author).. A few days after the Talkin-US intelligence meeting, Drob recommended a defense based on mental incompetence. The meeting between her first attorney's and US intelligence officials was revealed to Lindauer only years later by her second counsel, Brian Shaughnessy, who obtained the information through pre trial discovery motions.

Psychiatric Set Up and Tear Down

The full spectrum tear down of Lindauer relied heavily on highly selective psychiatric testimony from several court appointed psychiatrists in Manhattan. None of these psychiatrists ever treated Lindauer. They all interviewed her in a forensic setting, which typically drastically limits understanding an examinee's mental state in politically charged contexts where the examinee is not cooperative. Worse, the forensic experts hired by the state in such contexts often act as "hired guns," and typically refuse to consider independent substantive evidence that supports the examinee's claims.

By her report and the author's review of interview transcripts provided by her attorney, Lindauer was not once cooperative with the court appointed forensic examiners. The dialog between her and psychiatrist Stewart Kleinman, MD, the most influential expert, was caustic and devoid of substantive content. Linder repeatedly stated that she didn't want to be interviewed by Kleinman.

In essence, the court experts routinely refused to follow up with witnesses Lindauer offered to attest to her role as an intelligence asset and to confirm her activities related to Iraq.

Most telling, the experts, upon whom Judge Mukasey relied for his confinement of Lindauer and his later opinion on forced medication, failed to consider the twelve month record of evaluation and counseling treatment after her arrest. Psychiatrist Dr John S. Kennedy, MD of Maryland concluded that her:

"… thought content was free of hallucinations, delusions, homicidality, or suicidality. She expressed confidence in an acquittal. Judgment and insight were fair. Cognition was grossly intact. … I don not believe there are grounds for a psychosis diagnosis." March 13, 2004

Lindauer attended 35 hours of counseling sessions between March 2004 and April 2005. You can examine the notes yourself provided by Lindauer and a part of her legal defense documentation.

There is a consistent pattern of assessed psychological stability in every single monthly summary. A frequent theme is expressed over time is that Lindauer, "appears to maintain psychological stability and shows no sign or symptom of mania or psychosis." Her treatment was concluded on April 7, 2005 with the note, "So far she has shown no signs of mania or depression and any symptoms of psychosis that would require additional intervention."

This information was not seriously considered or, more likely, completely ignored by the New York court appointed "experts" who labeled her delusional for maintaining her innocence. In addition, never mentioned in court proceedings was important evidence from Carswell psychiatric nursing reports. These reports document a consistent pattern of positive behavior and no signs of hallucinations or delusions during confinement. The Mukasey ruling of September 6, 2006, well referenced with the court expert opinions, makes no mention of Dr. Kennedy's evaluation, the 35 hours of counseling provided in Maryland, or the Carswell nursing reports. This was highly relevant primary evidence by clinicians familiar with Lindauer's day to day and week to week behavior over time.

As she tells it convincingly in Extreme Prejudice, Lindauer had to be silenced. First she was defamed publicly as someone who had worked for Iraq. Then she was diminished by the selective analysis by court appointed psychiatrists which further negated her story. Like the current Wikileaks controversy over Julian Assange, the delivery of bad news for those in power in the White House resulted in a figurative order to shoot the messenger.

Extreme Prejudice is memoir, action thriller, and cautionary tale on the risks citizens take when they go too far, know too much, and offer to tell the truth.

Some time ago, when Susan Lindauer first appeared on the scene, I heard of her book and offered to write a review of it. I sent her an e-mail and then a check to cover the cost of the book at her request, and then embarked on a string of e-mail correspondence about the review not yet even written, or the book not yet even read. After a while, I decided to return the book and beg off the opportunity to review it. I was told I could not have a refund and that the deal was that I write a review. I declined the refund. I declined her demand that I return the book which I had paid for so she could send it to some other potential reviewer. Finally, given her insistence that she had gone to great expense to provide me with the book and could not afford to send another, I sent her the funds to cover four such books which she could then send to others.

If anyone wants my "read" on the impressions and preliminary research that suggested to me that I sidestep this woman's tale, send me a PM.

I don't find her a credible person. If I understand her correctly she claims the 19 hijackers did fly those planes into the towers, it was known in advance and was part of a plot which involved placing explosives in the towers the week before the 9/11/2001.

Of course the most bizarre aspect of her tale is that she was a back channel negotiator for the US with the Iraqis... but she was handled by some one higher up in the CIA. Ha??? Does she seem like the kind of person to speak for the USA in back channel talks with the Iraqis? You tell me.

Ed Jewett Wrote:Some time ago, when Susan Lindauer first appeared on the scene, I heard of her book and offered to write a review of it. I sent her an e-mail and then a check to cover the cost of the book at her request, and then embarked on a string of e-mail correspondence about the review not yet even written, or the book not yet even read. After a while, I decided to return the book and beg off the opportunity to review it. I was told I could not have a refund and that the deal was that I write a review. I declined the refund. I declined her demand that I return the book which I had paid for so she could send it to some other potential reviewer. Finally, given her insistence that she had gone to great expense to provide me with the book and could not afford to send another, I sent her the funds to cover four such books which she could then send to others.

If anyone wants my "read" on the impressions and preliminary research that suggested to me that I sidestep this woman's tale, send me a PM.

There is plenty to question about her analysis...and I don't personally buy her theory on how 911 happened. That is not the point. There is IMO only ONE real point to her story and that is whether or not there was foreknowledge of an attempt [whether by outsiders or insiders] to hijack planes and fly them into the WTC [and at just about the time of the event]. Beyond that, she is speculating - and from the video doesn't even seem to have read deeply of the 911 Truth research thus far. I guess some could question her entire story and I don't claim to have independent proof nor to have done the research to make an intelligent call on this, yet. She was under most person's radar until the book came out and it is only now getting much attention. Time will tell. If it is true that she was kept in prison for a year, that alone makes one wonder why, indeed! She is clearly not mentally incompetent. To me, again, the only importance is her core story - that of being told of foreknowledge and seemingly being silenced after the event for stating so. Let the vetting begin. Personally, her own theories on 911 or Libya now don't interest me - only that core info re: foreknowledge and where it might have come from.