the amazing story… personal experience … prison …. indictment …. gov’t and corporate media forcefully suppress her story …. etc
See and hear for yourself to assess
CIA Asset Susan Lindauer.. Can Now Speaks 10 years after 2001-9-11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxJTwbHdH6k
<><><>
9/11: Starting Over With The Truth
9/11: STARTING OVER WITH THE TRUTH–PART ONE
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
Dedicated to TJ Bronco and Eddie Sengola—Semper fi
When I recall the summer of 2001 and our last days of innocence before the 9/11 attack, I often think of Guy Clark’s old song, “Like Desperadoes Waiting for a Train.”
I remember the heartbreak of it vividly. That’s because our team gave advance warnings about the 9/11 attack in precision detail. On command of my CIA handler, I also delivered threats to Iraqi diplomats at the United Nations of the consequence of War should Baghdad withhold actionable intelligence about the 9/11 conspiracy.
Throughout that hot summer, we understood exactly how 9/11 would play out— with airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center. We had a good idea of the timing. And we projected the use of a miniature thermo-nuclear device. Yet for all that we tried, we could not stop it. Forces had been set in motion. Responsive actions to our urgent appeals for help— which should have been automatic—got ignored.
Above all, we could not fathom that another competing team would sneak in and wire explosives to bring down the Towers—And that’s exactly what happened.
We shouted from the rooftops. We joked in phone conversations that “the NSA should wake up and pick up the phones. You guys at NSA have been tapping our phones for years, so you could catch this call. Don’t sleep through it now. Hello NSA. Pick up the phone!” When new neighbors showed up with a moving van that July, I joked they might go back where they came from, if they heard our conversation about this World Trade Center attack.
After 9/11, I wept for those conversations. By August, our team was so anxious about the “imminent” timing of the attack that my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz instructed me to go the extra mile to notify the Justice Department and the White House, so both sides of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement could mobilize together to block it.
Our actions that August will be outlined in my next article. It put our team—including Dr. Richard Fuisz and Paul Hoven— at the eye of the storm that would become the 9/11 cover up. Our efforts robbed the Bush Administration of deniability, making us a serious threat to the story they desired to sell on the FOX News Channel and the Sunday morning talk shows. Notoriously, I would get slapped with the Patriot Act and locked in prison on Carswell Air Force Base in Texas. When incarceration failed to break my spirit or frighten me out of speaking, they threatened me with forcible drugging with Haldol, Ativan and Prozac to chemically lobotomize me into silence.
Because truth does matter. So much of America’s national security and terrorism policy has been predicated on mistaken assumptions about that day. Ignorance has inflicted a terrible cost on America’s foreign policy, pushing the United States into two catastrophic Wars, and drowning our Middle Class in red ink and deficit spending to beef up profit margins for defense contractors.
Once Americans understand 9/11 as a collision of special interests, our country should be able to sweep away the false construct that has become the War on Terrorism. We should be freed to create a more effective strategy for protecting our nation’s security, without exaggerating threats and manufacturing fresh hostilities against us.
Because there was no external enemy threatening our country on that terrible day. Just Us. It was always Us.
Argumentum Ad Numeram
That’s not what the corporate media wants America to think. The official 9/11 story relies on a principle called “argumentum ad numeram–” the notion that an idea becomes truthful because large numbers of people believe it. I have choked to hear the babbling of the media describe 9/11 with post-it sticker smiley faces. It’s glib and trite and inaccurate.
The Corporate Media guessed wrong in the first hours and days after the attack. Over the years the media discredited itself further by protecting those mistakes, rather than confess that pundits had no idea what they were talking about in the first place.
Americans aren’t fooled. They know the official story is bunk. People want to know what really happened. And they have a right to know.
Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign
For those reasons, I wholeheartedly endorse the new Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign http://www.911cc.org. Organizers intend to file ballot propositions in Oregon, Massachusetts and other states. When passed, the ballot initiative would create a powerful, independent 9/11 Commission vested with subpoena authority and the ability to collect testimony under oath. Largely free of governmental interference, the Citizens 9/11 Commission would be headquartered in the first state to pass the ballot measure.
“We believe we have a winning approach: the method of direct democracy—” says former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel and President of the Democracy Foundation, which has launched the 9/11 Campaign. Gravel is best known for his Senate filibuster that ended the draft after Vietnam, and for reading the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.
“The 9/11 movement’s successful decade of citizen education can now give way to an actionable citizen’s plan for change that will create a new investigation!”
For myself, an opportunity to testify before a 9/11 Citizens Commission—no holds barred— would be a huge relief. These articles scratch the surface. There’s much more depth that could be related under oath.
Hijackings or Demolitions?
An effective 9/11 Citizens Commission would do more than demolish the official 9/11 story. It would also shatter the false constraints imposed by the 9/11 Community on itself.
The trouble is that Americans are inclined to trust a limited range of options. Either they believe airplane hijackings alone brought down the towers— or they insist that only a controlled demolition of the Towers using explosives accomplished the deed— as if the two must have been mutually exclusive events.
Both are mistaken. The World Trade Center suffered BOTH hijackings AND a controlled demolition.
Fire fighters and building maintenance crews reported explosions popping through the Towers like fireworks.
And they weren’t shy about reporting it. However for reasons that are incomprehensible and grossly irresponsible, the corporate media took the government bait, and oversimplified the 9/11 conspiracy to erase nagging inconsistencies from human consensus. 9/11 was groupthink at its most refined.
Once you understand how competing events collided during that sweltering month of August, 2001, you will understand how and why.
Motive and Opportunity
Any police officer will tell you a crime requires two things: motive and opportunity. That’s been missing from the 9/11 debate until now. Advance knowledge about the hijacking conspiracy created “opportunity” for taking 9/11 to the next level of absolute destruction. Iraq upped the ante, and created motivation to guarantee maximum destruction—a competing agenda that collided with efforts to stop the attack.
Most importantly, the decision to go on a War footing against Iraq, in response to the hijacking attack, was made before 9/11 occurred, not after. That’s critical to understanding why Cabinet level officers of the White House took no action to deploy NORAD or post an anti-aircraft battery on top of the Twin Towers, which would have been very easy to do. Advance knowledge of the consequence of War with Iraq created an overwhelming provocation for an orphan team to wire the building with explosives. Likewise, knowledge of the timing of the attack, its method of operation—and the low sophistication of the hijackers’ flying skills (watched by foreign intelligence)— had been identified far enough in advance that it was relatively easy to prepare the explosives. It was easy enough to anticipate that a dramatic collapse of the buildings would maximize the media impact, which could be exploited to stampede Americans into War with Iraq.
Yes, that’s despicable. And it’s exactly what they did.
U.S. Threats to Iraq
The dynamic building into 9/11 started in April, 2001. I was summoned to my CIA handler’s office in Great Falls, Virginia to receive a message for Iraqi diplomats—exactly what my back channel existed for. The message demanded that Baghdad hand over any fragment of intelligence involving airplane hijackings, or face military retribution if the U.S. discovered Baghdad had possessed that knowledge and took no action to warn us.
At that very moment, two special things were happening: 1) international loathing was pushing an end to U.N. sanctions on Iraq, which had caused the deaths of 1.7 million Iraqis, including 1 million children under the age of 5, according to World Health statistics. And 2) unbeknownst to Americans or the international community, the U.S. and Baghdad were engaged in highly productive back channel talks for a comprehensive peace framework that would have achieved all U.S. objectives, including preferential contracts for U.S. corporations after sanctions in oil, telecommunications, hospital equipment and pharmaceuticals, transportation and non-dual use factory equipment.
In April, my first instinct was to soft pedal the U.S. threat. No need to upset diplomatic advances, right? As it happened, in February, 2001 Baghdad had already invited the FBI to send an Anti-Terrorism Task Force into Iraq—seven months before the 9/11 strike. So when I requested intelligence on the 9/11 Conspiracy in April, the Iraqis responded enthusiastically. They welcomed the United States to go ahead and send the FBI right away, so the U.S. could get what we wanted. (The original 9/11 Commission never got to hear about Iraq’s welcome to the FBI, either).
When I reported back on my trip to New York, I was quite pleased. However Dr. Fuisz stormed his office yelling that I had not sufficiently conveyed the force of the U.S. threat. I was to go back to the Iraqi Embassy forthwith, and inform Baghdad that “Iraq would be bombed back to the Stone Age, worse than anything they had suffered before if it was discovered they had concealed any fragment of intelligence involving airplane hijackings.”
Dr. Fuisz instructed me to warn Baghdad those “threats of War did not come from him or anyone at the CIA. Threats of War originated at the highest levels of government far above the CIA Director and the Secretary of State.”
Only three men fit the bill: President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Of course I did as instructed. Observing his fury, I understood with a jolt that the hijacking threat was considered “highly credible” and “validated.” In June and July, weekly meetings with Dr. Fuisz got more agitated. We talked about 9/11 practically every week. We regarded the terrorist scenario as inevitable, if intervention failed. I began to tell civilian friends with ties to New York that the CIA expected a major attack on southern Manhattan involving airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center.
Dr. Parke Godfrey, a professor of computer science at York University in Toronto, would later testify in the Federal Courthouse for the Southern District of New York— 1,000 yards from where the Twin Towers had once graced the skyline—that several times over the spring and summer I told him that we expected “airplane hijackings and a reprise of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center that would finish the cycle.” I told him the attack was expected in “late summer, early autumn.” And I told him we expected “mass casualties” and speculated about the “possible use of a miniature thermo-nuclear device.”
On August 2, 2001, the Senate held confirmation hearings for Robert Mueller to head the FBI. Dr Fuisz suggested that perhaps the FBI Director’s chair would be vacant when the 9/11 attack occurred.
That’s when Dr. Fuisz and I mapped out a path of action that would undercut the entire 9/11 mythology, and paint a bulls eye on my back for the 9/11 Cover Up.
Alas, no good deed goes unpunished in Washington. Somebody would have to pay for knowing about 9/11, and it would turn out to be me.
As luck would have it, the Feds didn’t count on one thing that would scotch the government’s plan to imprison me indefinitely for up to 10 years with forcible drugging to boot— and torpedo the official 9/11 story out of the water:
When Dr. Fuisz told me in August that the 9/11 attack was considered “imminent,” I called my friend, Parke Godfrey, whose family lived in the wealthy suburbs of Connecticut.
I warned him to stay the hell out of Manhattan.
Next in this series: August, 2001— Organizers of the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign have asked me to lay out evidence, but not draw conclusions. They argue, quite reasonably, that the Citizens 9/11 Commission should be the appropriate body to draw conclusions once all evidence and testimony have been taken from every possible source.
9/11 Whistleblower: Susan Lindauer is the author of “Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq.“
<><><>
Book Review: Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq, by Susan Lindauer
In the over nine years of informing the public of the evidence which clearly supports that 9/11 was a false flag operation, one of the most common objections has been that “hundreds, if not thousands, of people would have been involved and therefore, someone would have blown the whistle!”
While no direct insiders have spoken out (think psychopaths), nonetheless, whistleblowers do abound, telling us a story that is far afield of that told to us by our government and mainstream media. Many can be discovered by a simple search on the web for “9/11 whistleblowers.”
Former CIA Asset Susan Lindauer, in her newly released book, Extreme Prejudice, 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 whistleblowers and dissidents.
From Janice Matthews, Director of 911Truth.org: “….It unfolds like a suspense thriller from deep within the struggle for global sanity, at the hands of those perpetrating dark secrecy. Lindauer reveals faces of our national truth few Americans imagine. Chilling, heartbreaking, horrifying and hopeful, Extreme Prejudice offers a depth of historical insight critical to transforming our future. Pay attention.”
And pay attention we must if we are to stem the rising tide of a lawless and fascist nation overtaking this democratic republic. For more information on Susan Lindauer, see http://911review.org/Lindauer/ . Below is a book review by Michael Collins.
Fran Shure, Tim Boyle, and Dorothy Lorig
BOOK REVIEW
The Hornet’s Nest Kicked Back – A Review of Susan Lindauer’s Extreme Prejudice
by Michael Collins
December 21, 2010
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.
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 prewar 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 prewar 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 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 within 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 his 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 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 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 meeting with US intelligence officials shortly after the defense psychologist, Sanford L. Drob, Ph.D., 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 and US intelligence officials was revealed to Lindauer only years later by her second counsel, Brian Shaughnessy, who obtained the information through pretrial 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. Lindauer 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, M.D. 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 do 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 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.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
>
Saturday, January 8, 2011
CIA Asset Susan Lindauer blows the whistle on 9/11, Iraq
Susan Lindauer, author of Extreme Prejudice, is the first CIA asset to have spoken out, under her own name and for the record, on Israeli complicity in 9/11, the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and the specific, detailed foreknowledge of the time, target, and means of the 9/11 attacks held throughout the months prior to 9/11 by the CIA in general and Lindauer’s CIA handler, Richard Fuisz, in particular. She has also exposed her first-hand knowledge of pre-war intelligence and negotiations showing that Iraq was willing to give the US “anything it asked” and that the war was therefore–from the perspective of US interests–not only utterly unnecessary, but wildly counterproductive. Lindauer’s evidence points strongly to 9/11 being a coup d’etat by hard-line Zionists determined to steer the US into a self-destructive war on Israel’s enemies.
Listen to my complete interview with Susan Lindauer here. Below is a transcript of the first half of the interview.
Barrett
I understand that you had some 9/11 foreknowledge, but were actually busted for trying to explain to the Bush Administration through your cousin Andrew Card, that invading Iraq was insane, that the Iraqis were basically going to do anything we wanted anyway–they’ll agree to anything for peace–and that there would be a terrible resistance and a terrible war if there was an invasion. And for that very accurate and prescient warning, they went after you.
Lindauer
Well, you have a very good grasp of this issue, I will tell you. It is a complicated story. I was one of the very few (CIA) assets covering Iraq before the war. And I had established contact with the Iraqi embassy at the United Nations in New York back in August of 1996. And for seven years before the invasion, I was what they call a “back channel” to Iraq on the question of terrorism. That was my foremost priority. This was covert in the sense that it was covert to the West. But the Iraqis were fully informed as to who I was and what I was doing and what my purpose was. My motivation was that I hated the United Nations sanctions. I hated the genocidal consequences and suffering for the Iraqi people, most truly and genuinely–that was very sincere. And they knew it. And both sides knew my politics. In fact, the CIA had come to me knowing my politics and said “hey, why don’t you try to help us.” They co-opted me–they did–but I agreed to be co-opted. We all understood each other. And that’s very important for what happened.
Barrett
That’s not necessarily a bad thing. There is a role for people who are intermediaries between warring parties and who try to make peace. And it sounds like that’s what you were doing.
Lindauer
Yes indeed. And both sides understood my politics, that I wanted to help end the sanctions. And the CIA was very adamant that Iraq had to meet certain criteria in order for that to happen. And my contribution from the very first days was on terrorism. Our team started what we called preliminary talks with Baghdad in November of 2000, two years before the United Nations got involved. Our team started back channel talks to get Iraq’s agreement on the weapons inspections. And over the next fifteen months, my supervisor, Richard Fuisz (pronounced “fuse”), through talks at the Iraqi embassy, mostly with Iraq’s ambassador Dr. Sayeed Hassan, and with other senior Iraqi diplomats, on what conditions Iraq would have to accept in order to resume the weapons inspections. And at that point we had begun to develop a comprehensive peace framework which extended great support to anti-terrorism. Iraq agreed to let the FBI come into Baghdad and operate a task force that would have authority–this was before 9/11 ever happened! Nine months before 9/11 happened, Iraq agreed to have the FBI come into Baghdad with the authority to conduct terrorism investigations, interview witnesses, make arrests. After 9/11, Iraq agreed to give financial records on al-Qaeda to the United States. BUT the United states didn’t want to take the records.
Barrett
It makes you wonder why not.
Lindauer
Isn’t that an interesting question.
Barrett
It leads me to (my next question): You apparently had some kind of foreknowledge of 9/11. Can you explain to us what that was?
Lindauer
Yes. This is a very interesting thing, and I’m glad…I hope your audience will pay attention to this. We absolutely expected 9/11 to happen. And there’s a subtlety here that I hope your audience will appreciate. In April and May of 2001 I was summoned to my CIA handler’s office and told that I needed to confront the Iraqi diplomats at the United Nations, through my back channel, with a demand for any fragment of intelligence regarding airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings. And over the summer, that progressed to a deep belief that there was going to be an airplane hijacking attack, and some sort of aerial strike, on the World Trade Center. We talked about this in our one-on-one meetings practically every week. Just so we are clear, this was not a one-time conversation. This was a major focus of our efforts. Richard (Fuisz, Lindauer’s CIA handler) was very worried about it, very agitated about it, how Iraq must give us this intelligence. Now, I don’t mean to patronize you, but I’m sure you’re familiar with the concept of deniability. I do not think that Richard Fuisz knew all the details of 9/11. However, he knew enough. My book Extreme Prejudice goes into the conversations that we had in great detail. And he knew the timing of the attack. By August 2001, Richard was telling me not to go into New York City because this attack was immanent. And on the day of FBI Director Robert Mueller’s confirmation hearings, which I think was August 2nd–in my book it’s very clear, I’ve checked all the dates–Richard Fuisz told me that the attack was immanent. And I said, well, I’m going up to New York to ask my Iraqi sources about this again. And he said “Don’t go to New York, it’s too dangerous, I don’t want you going there again.” And I said “I’m just going up this weekend, and I promise I will not go back to New York.” And that’s how close this was. They knew a great deal. And what was interesting is that after 9/11, I get arrested, and he gets thirteen million dollars in payoffs. (laughs)
Barrett
(laughing) Oh boy. That’s amazing. They arrested you, because they were probably concerned about you revealing the contents of your conversations with Richard, among other things.
Lindauer
Oh yes, absolutely. And the fact that there was a peace option on the table that had been developed over a two year period before the war, a comprehensive peace framework. It included cooperation on anti-terrorism; it included the weapons inspections, of course–you already knew that; and it included Iraq’s commitment to donate economic reconstruction–donate is not the right word–to dedicate economic reconstruction contracts to United States corporations with preferential treatment, preferential contracts in telecommunications, health care, pharmaceuticals, and transportation. This was a comprehensive peace framework! We covered everything! We covered a lot. And nobody even knows about this!
Barrett
That’s amazing. There have been general reports of this nature, including post-9/11, right up to the eve of the invasion, there have been reports that Saddam Hussein was willing to give the US basically everything it wanted to hold off the invasion.
Lindauer
Yes. Yes.
Barrett
That leads to the question: Why do you think, given that you recognize just how insane this invasion was, how completely unnecessary–the Iraqis were caving as far as they had to cave anyway–what was the point?
Lindauer
Yes, literally, Iraq said to me: “What is it the United States wants? Anything that the United States asks for, we will give them. Just tell us what it is!” When I was on a trip to Baghdad, they offered to buy one million American-made automobiles every year for ten years. And (an Iraqi diplomat) said to me, “Look, Susan, if ten years isn’t enough, we’ll make it twenty years.”
Barrett
You know, Susan, you’re kind of ruining Saddam Hussein’s posthumous reputation as somebody who stood up to the U.S.!
Lindauer
He was more harsh on terrorists than we were.
Barrett
He didn’t get along with al-Qaeda, and he didn’t get along with Islamists of any kind, including the Iranians.
Lindauer
That’s right.
Barrett
You would have thought that the U.S. would have just kept running him as an American puppet. He got his start as a CIA hit man, apparently.
Lindauer
Yes indeed.
Barrett
So why, why this insane insistence on going to war with Iraq–a war that has killed one and a half million innocent Iraqis and destroyed that country. What was the purpose of it?
Lindauer
It was so incredibly stupid. And 9/11…9/11 could have been used at the start…9/11 was a tragedy, a terrible, terrible tragedy, but 9/11 could have accomplished great good. Because right after 9/11 Iraq went into high mode of giving. They were offering us everything we wanted: Financial records on al-Qaeda, proof of a Middle Eastern link to what we used to call the inter-Arab group of terrorists, which was actually an amalgamation of several different terrorist factions, coalesced into al-Qaeda. They were willing to prove that there was a Middle Eastern link to the Oklahoma City bombing and the first attack on the World Trade Center, and those included financial documents, bank records…we could have tracked the money that’s financing terrorism around the world. Instead what we do is, we create an enemy. Because it looks better–the politicians could go grandstand. As a former (CIA) asset I can assure you, they don’t actually do anything on terrorism. They give speeches. They go wave their hands in the parades. But they don’t do anything to contribute to anti-terrorism efforts. But the people have been fooled by their showmanship and their grandstanding and their spectacle. It’s like a circus performance now! In fact, before 9/11, there were 200 to 300 terrorists in the world who wanted to attack America. Now, after 9/11 and after the war in Iraq and after the war on Afghanistan, there are only about 2000 to 3000 individuals whose entire focus of life is revenge and coming into the United States and attacking us. That’s only 3000 people. The way I look at it, this is like a high school auditorium that you could fill with the potential terrorists. That’s it! This is an invention! We’ve made this up!
Barrett
Right. Very well put. I’ve often explained to people that there was no real terrorist threat pre-9/11, and that for every one person pre-9/11 who was bent on doing harm to the US, there must be a great many today, because of all the terrible things that have gone on since 9/11.
Lindauer
Yes.
Barrett
So the question then, is…is it just sheer total incompetence and stupidity and grandstanding and egotism–I’m sure all of that contributes to it, but—uh…well, frankly, Susan, my take on all of this is that 9/11 was a Mossad operation, that it was of course done through Cheney’s office. There were no hijackings. The guys that they blamed for it were not terrorists at all. They weren’t even on the planes. There is not a shred of evidence that any of these guys were on those planes, nor is there a shred of actual evidence that there were any hijackings. Instead, we had a military operation that was essentially a Zionist coup d’état by the Likkud faction that wanted to destroy Iraq so it would never be a threat to Israel. A prosperous Iraq, allied to the US, would actually be terrible for Israel. That’s why they wouldn’t take the deals that you were brokering. Care to comment?
Lindauer
I think that you are–I do believe in the hijackings, but I believe in everything else that you have just said. One of the things that came out right after 9/11: I’ve often been asked by people what my CIA handler Richard Fuisz’s source was for the 9/11 attack. And he told me briefly, he let it slip. Immediately after the attack, when we were all in a state of shock, he said to me…the first building had collapsed, but it was before the second building collapsed. This is a very important time frame. He made reference to video tape, which by the way was not released to the public until the next day, but right after 9/11 Richard Fuisz already knows about this video tape! Right after the attack–the first building has collapsed, the second one is still standing–and we’re both talking in the living room, we’re both shouting–I’m in my living room, he’s in his living room, and we’re shouting at the televisions–and he blurts out to me: “Susan, how many times do you think a camera is cued up waiting for a car accident to occur?” He said, “What do you think are the odds that those two people were just standing on the sidewalk with a video camera waiting patiently for the plane to hit the building?” And he said, “Those are Mossad agents. They knew that the World Trade Center was about to get hit, and they were waiting there for it to happen so they could record it and put it out in the media.” Now this is before it has even come out in the media. He identifies them as Mossad agents, and I believe–I’m convinced–that that was the source of our knowledge of al-Qaeda. But what you guys don’t know, which I will throw out to you, which comes out in my book, is that from April and May of 2001 onwards, Richard Fuisz instructed me to threaten the Iraqis with war. Now everybody assumes that the war stuff came after 9/11. But it didn’t. They had decided months before 9/11 ever happened that as soon as this attack occurred, this would be the motivation for the war. So they absolutely knew that this attack was coming. They knew that it was going to be in late August or September. And that opens up a whole new dynamic proving what you have just said: That it was a Mossad conspiracy, that there was complicity…maybe that’s a better word, complicity…I’m going to go a little softer on the language than you. Mossad complicity.
Barrett
I would argue that it’s a little more than complicity–that the demolitions of the three tallest buildings ever taken down in controlled demolitions required immense skill and military specialization and so on…
Lindauer
Oh yes, when I say complicity, I include that in it. Yes. I believe in the detonations. In fact…do I have time to tell you one story before break?
Barrett
Tell it, go for it.
Lindauer
While I was writing my book, I had a high-ranking State Department official, who has a very very high, top-top-top security classification, and I cannot name him for you because I don’t want to hurt his reputation. He’s close to retirement, he’s going to have a pension–they would crush him if he was ever exposed, I suspect. He thinks it too. He says that a couple of weeks before 9/11, at the end of August, for about two weeks, strange vans were arriving at the World Trade Center at three o’ clock in the morning. They were staying from about three o’ clock to about four-thirty or five. They were coming in for a brief period. And he swore to me that he personally had investigated the janitorial services, and he said “I know first hand how many employees the janitorial service had, what their trucks looked like, what their revenues were like, where they lived.” He said “we know the addresses.” We are confident that none of the people from the janitorial services were tied to these trucks. It had never happened before, it was a unique thing. This was not a constant thing like over a six month period. It was a strange anomaly right before (the attack on) the World Trade Center. And he was convinced that this was government-level thermite, government-level weapons, that had been put into either the stairwells or the elevator shafts. And he is convinced that this is when it happened.
Posted by Kevin Barrett at 8:35 AM
Labels: 9/11 truth, Andrew Card, CIA, controlled demolition, invasion, Iraq, Kevin Barrett, Mossad, Richard Fuisz, Saddam, Susan Lindauer, thermite, whistleblowers, World Trade Center, Zionism
<><><>
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
CIA Asset Susan Lindauer blows the whistle on 9/11, Iraq
here’s CIA Asset Susan Lindauer blowing the whistle on 9/11 and Iraq, and Israel.
It’s a properly amazing audio interview from Kevin Barrett @ Truth Jihad, here’s the blurb and a tasty sample:
Susan Lindauer, author of Extreme Prejudice, is the first CIA asset to have spoken out, under her own name and for the record, on Israeli complicity in 9/11, the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and the specific, detailed foreknowledge of the time, target, and means of the 9/11 attacks held throughout the months prior to 9/11 by the CIA in general and Lindauer’s CIA handler, Richard Fuisz, in particular. She has also exposed her first-hand knowledge of pre-war intelligence and negotiations showing that Iraq was willing to give the US “anything it asked” and that the war was therefore–from the perspective of US interests–not only utterly unnecessary, but wildly counter-productive. Lindauer’s evidence points strongly to 9/11 being a coup d’etat by hard-line Zionists determined to steer the US into a self-destructive war on Israel’s enemies.
Barrett: So the question then, is…is it just sheer total incompetence and stupidity and grandstanding and egotism–I’m sure all of that contributes to it, but—uh…well, frankly, Susan, my take on all of this is that 9/11 was a Mossad operation, that it was of course done through Cheney’s office. There were no hijackings. The guys that they blamed for it were not terrorists at all.
They weren’t even on the planes. There is not a shred of evidence that any of these guys were on those planes, nor is there a shred of actual evidence that there were any hijackings.
Instead, we had a military operation that was essentially a Zionist coup d’état by the Likkud faction that wanted to destroy Iraq so it would never be a threat to Israel. A prosperous Iraq, allied to the US, would actually be terrible for Israel. That’s why they wouldn’t take the deals that you were brokering. Care to comment?
Lindauer: I think that you are–I do believe in the hijackings, but I believe in everything else that you have just said. One of the things that came out right after 9/11: I’ve often been asked by people what my CIA handler Richard Fuisz’s source was for the 9/11 attack. And he told me briefly, he let it slip. Immediately after the attack, when we were all in a state of shock, he said to me…the first building had collapsed, but it was before the second building collapsed. This is a very important time frame.
He made reference to video tape, which by the way was not released to the public until the next day, but right after 9/11 Richard Fuisz already knows about this video tape! Right after the attack–the first building has collapsed, the second one is still standing–and we’re both talking in the living room, we’re both shouting–I’m in my living room, he’s in his living room, and we’re shouting at the televisions–and he blurts out to me: “Susan, how many times do you think a camera is cued up waiting for a car accident to occur?”
He said, “What do you think are the odds that those two people were just standing on the sidewalk with a video camera waiting patiently for the plane to hit the building?” And he said, “Those are Mossad agents.
They knew that the World Trade Center was about to get hit, and they were waiting there for it to happen so they could record it and put it out in the media.” Now this is before it has even come out in the media. He identifies them as Mossad agents, and I believe–I’m convinced–that that was the source of our knowledge of al-Qaeda. But what you guys don’t know, which I will throw out to you, which comes out in my book, is that from April and May of 2001 onwards, Richard Fuisz instructed me to threaten the Iraqis with war. Now everybody assumes that the war stuff came after 9/11. But it didn’t.
They had decided months before 9/11 ever happened that as soon as this attack occurred, this would be the motivation for the war. So they absolutely knew that this attack was coming. They knew that it was going to be in late August or September. And that opens up a whole new dynamic proving what you have just said: That it was a Mossad conspiracy, that there was complicity…maybe that’s a better word, complicity…I’m going to go a little softer on the language than you. Mossad complicity.
Here’s a link to new Year interview by Kevin Barrett of Susan Lindauer.
Here’s a link to the transcript of the first half of the interview.
Here’s a link to a January 10th interview with THE UGLY TRUTH, about 25 mins into the show, where Lindauer reveals that Sanctions Against Iraq cost 9,000 lives PER MONTH. There was a total of 2 million Iraqis before the Coalition went in – 1 million of them were CHILDREN UNDER FIVE years of age.
Happy that sanctions work, now?
And here’s a link to a January 13th interview with JACK BLOOD, she comes in at around the 70 mins mark.
And here’s a link to a January 16th interview with INTEL HUB, with a second part due for January 30th about The Patriot Act.
REVELATORY SAMPLE from the Intel Hub interview: Sali Malud(sic), Iraq ambassador at the time of 9-11, says, “Susan, you knew about 9-11, so why did you let this attack happen to your own people. Why did you let your own people die? It happened because you wanted to go to war with us and you were willing to kill your own people do it.”
Hmm…. to which Lindauer laughs like a loon, after stating that Malud closed with, “You should ask God for forgiveness!”
Referring to reports of Iraq’s involvement with 9-11, Malud adds, “The Mossad says that.”
Posted by Mike Philbin at 7:00 AM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: whistleblowers
| Reactions: |
<><><>
A Dangerous Woman: Indefinite Detention at Carswell
By Susan Lindauer
Sunday, December 11th, 2011
By Susan Lindauer
Some things are truly unforgivable in a democracy. A bill moving through Congress, authorizing the military to imprison Americans indefinitely, without a trial or hearing, ranks right at the top of that list.
I know I lived through it on the Patriot Act. When Congress decided to squelch the truth about the CIA’s advance warnings about 9/11 and the existence of a comprehensive peace option with Iraq, as the CIA’s chief Asset covering Iraq, I became an overnight threat. To protect their cover-up scheme, I got locked in federal prison inside Carswell Air Force Base, while the Justice Department battled to detain me “indefinitely” up to 10 years, without a hearing or guilty plea. Worst yet, they demanded the right to forcibly drug me with Haldol, Ativan and Prozac, in a violent effort to chemically lobotomize the truth about 9/11 and Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence.
Critically, because my legal case was controlled by civilian Courts, my Defense had a forum to fight back. The Judge was an independent arbiter to hear my grievances. And that made all the difference. If this law on military detentions had been active, my situation would have been hopeless. The Patriot Act was bad enough. Mercifully, Chief Justice Michael B. Mukasey is a preeminent legal scholar who recognized the greater impact of my case. Even so, he faced a terrible choice declaring me “incompetent to stand trial,” so my case could be killed or creating dangerous legal precedents tied to secret charges, secret evidence, secret grand jury testimony and indefinite detention from the Patriot Act’s arsenal of weapons against truth tellers that would impact all defendants in the U.S. Courts.
It was a hideous choice The judicial farce was more ugly because it stamped me a “religious maniac” for believing in God a ludicrous argument for rejecting a defendant’s demand for a trial. It lined up beautifully, however, with Congress’ desire to bastardize the “incompetence” of Assets engaged in Pre-War Intelligence. Anything to escape responsibility for their own poor decision making.
To this day, it scorches my heart with rage and betrayal. It was unforgivable on so many levels.
And it had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. This was about fighting truth and protecting powerful leaders in Washington determined to glorify themselves with phony patriotism and media fireworks in the War on Terrorism a fantasy if there was one.
Those of us with the facts at our fingertips, who could expose leadership fraud and deceptions, had to be destroyed. I had three strikes against me. First off, I had personal knowledge of the CIA’s advance warnings about 9/11, and how Republican leaders thwarted efforts to preempt the attack. Secondly, I had direct knowledge of Iraq’s contributions to the 9/11 investigation, and how Republican leaders rejected financial documents on early Al Qaeda figures like Ramzi Youssef and Sheikh Abdul Rahmon of Egypt and Sheikh al Zawahiri who replaced Osama bin Laden as Al Qaeda’s leader. That would have shut down the financial pipeline for terrorism, if Washington cared about results. Finally, my team had successfully negotiated a peace framework with Baghdad that would have achieved all objectives in Iraq without firing a shot.
Oh I was a threat to the Washington elite, no doubt. Without the Patriot Act, the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq would have failed. Given normal due process, I would have shouted truth from the rooftops and exposed them all.
Let’s not mince words. Members of Congress who support laws like the Patriot Act and Military Detentions fear the American people deeply. They hate what America stands for. Above all they fear exposure of their mediocrity as our leaders. They are desperate to hide their leadership failures. And so they commit Treason against us savaging the liberties enshrined in our Constitution to safeguard their access to power, weakening our ability to challenge them openly, building a society of fear. They ply us with buzzwords like “anti-terrorism” and “national security.” But they are the greatest threat facing our nation today. They are traitors among us.
Terrorism is a buzz-word to quiet outrage over this shredding of the Constitution. Most Americans don’t understand that the Patriot Act has expanded the scope of terrorism to cover any free political speech that challenges Institutions of Authority. Acts of violence are not necessary. The possibility that free speech could weaken public trust in leadership qualifies as the New Sedition. Any political speech that provokes the People to think and question authority can be squashed as a threat to political control.
I was no Traitor. My life was dedicated to non-violence and my specialty was anti-terrorism from 1993 to 2003. My bona fides were the best anywhere. I gave advance warning about the 9/11 attack, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, and the 1993 World Trade Center attack. When the FBI cracked open my computer, they found proof that my team had run one of the very first investigations of Osama bin Laden in 1998, before the Dar es Salaam/Nairobi bombings. I started negotiations for the Lockerbie Trial with Libya, and preliminary talks on resuming weapons inspections in Iraq.
I was a very real threat to Republican leaders at the White House, however. I was guilty of possessing inconvenient knowledge powerful enough to persuade voters to throw a lot of deceptive politicians out of Congress.
Military detentions would push America farther into the abyss. First, it eliminates the need for charges against political defendants altogether. And secondly, it transfers decisions about a defendant’s fate away from the oversight of a civilian Judge to a military Sentry and base commander. It’s a complete negation of the Courts.
At a practical level, there are consequences that Americans would never dream possible:
There’s no requirement for Military Officers to acknowledge that a prison exists inside a military base. Nor can Military officers be compelled to identify individuals who might be detained on the base.
There’s no guarantee an attorney would be assigned to the accused. Indeed, the Sentry and Commanding Officer would have full authority, individually, to decide whether attorney visits shall be allowed at all. Access to an attorney would be a matter of military discretion, including frequency and duration. The Military Commander or sentry could decide to prohibit an attorney from entering the base altogether, without specifying a reason.
This must be underscored. Civilian Judges provide a fail-safe for defendants under military auspices. Under the proposed law, that protection would be removed. The Commanding Officer of the military base would assume full authority of the Court. The accused inmate would have nowhere to protest any aspect of the detention, or to move towards resolution.
Since the military alone decides who enters the base, the Sentry would have the power to reject visits by Family or Journalists, if they so choose.
In straight violation of the 8th Amendment of the Constitution, accused civilians would be denied the right to petition for bail.
Military prisoners might have limited rights to send letters or make phone calls to family or attorneys, at the discretion of the Commanding Officer. The military would have the right to keep a defendant totally incommunicado from the world.
An accused person would have no automatic rights to recreation outside of the cell. Prisoners could be locked in a 10 X 12 room 24-7, and denied the rights to exercise for one hour in a prison yard. That would be “indefinite,” too.
Like Bradley Manning, they could be forced to sleep almost naked with the lights on, under 24 hour surveillance, even in the absence of suicide threats.
Don’t bother arguing about it. One of the high points of my legal drama occurred when my fantastic and beloved Uncle Ted Lindauer a family member who happened to have 40 years of senior legal experience jumped into my legal fray in a Herculean effort to restore my freedom.
Three Times Tenacious Uncle Ted Drove 700 Miles (1,000 kms) in Each Direction from southern Illinois to Fort Worth, Texas. He carried proper identification and proof of his legal standing. He was registered on my visitor’s list, and prison authorities understood that he was functioning as Co-Counsel for my Defense.
On the first and second visits, Ted Lindauer arrived on the weekend during normal visiting hours. Nevertheless, the Sentry swore up and down that there was no prison inside Carswell Air Force Base, and I was not an inmate
Horrified, Ted Lindauer requested to speak with the Commanding Officer on duty.
Confronted with letters mailed from the prison and Court documents signed by Judge Mukasey, nevertheless, the Sentry and Commanding Officer refused to back down. Both stubbornly denied that I was housed anywhere on their military base.
On the second visit, the Sentry and Commanding Officer had a new excuse. Yeah, there was a prison on Carswell Air Force Base. But there were no visiting hours on weekends. Other prison families stood close by. One after the other, the sentry granted them access to the base to visit their relatives detained at the prison. Yet when Ted Lindauer, a 70 year old man with silver hair, stepped forward, the sentry guard refused.
Ted was furious. He told the Sentry we know some Generals, too! He insisted on the sanctity of my rights to attorney access, and promised to file a complaint with Judge Mukasey to compel the military to allow this attorney visit to occur. He swore that he would return with U.S. Marshals. And by God, he was coming onto that base.
Mercifully, there was a civilian Judge to back him up. Judge Mukasey raised hell. On the third visit, he did indeed order U.S. Marshals to flank Ted Lindauer at the front gates of Carswell Air Force Base.
Judge Mukasey waited in his Chambers in New York ready to give the order. Only when U.S. Marshals stood before them, ready to forcibly enter the base, did Carswell back down. They stopped pretending there was no prison, that I was not an inmate, and granted my Uncle a family member and attorney access to his client.
It’s a cautionary tale. The military is not equipped to handle this type of responsibility. It flies against all of their structure. And it illustrates poignantly why a Civilian Judge is critical to protecting a defendant’s rights when the military has physical jurisdiction.
All of this was occurring at a critical juncture. At that moment, citing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was arguing that I should be detained “indefinitely” up to 10 years with no right to a trial or hearing. More horribly still, the Justice Department was demanding the right to forcibly drug me with Haldol a rhinoceros tranquilizer until I could be “cured” of knowing the real facts about Iraq and 9/11 and serious leadership failures in the War on Terrorism.
Witness had already told the FBI about my work as an Asset and my team’s all important advance warnings about 9/11. The Feds understood very precisely what they were hiding and who would be the losers in Washington, if my story was told.
Because I was denied the right to a hearing, I was blocked from providing that validation to the Court— or the American public something Republicans on Capitol Hill feared desperately. Without a hearing, the Feds had free rein to savage my reputation with fantastic embellishments, portraying me as a religious maniac. (I freely confess that I have rock solid faith in God. However, the Justice Department played fast and loose with descriptions of my spirituality).
By the end of it, all of my Constitutional rights had been savagely violated My 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion; my 4th Amendment protections against illegal searches of my home; my 5th Amendment rights not to be forcibly interrogated by surrogates for the prosecution; my 6th Amendment rights to a speedy trial by a jury of my peers, with the rights to face my accusers and rebut accusations in a public Court of law. The Justice Department even violated my 8th Amendment protections against threats of torture, (forcibly drugging definitely qualifies).
To this day, I cannot believe such abuse could be possible in the United States. I’m a fighter, and I could not stop them. All the Constitutional protections that should have saved me were stripped away. It horrifies me today.
No American really understands the preciousness of Liberty until more powerful individuals in the government fight to take away those rights. Then in a blinding flash, you are awed by the magnificence of the Founding Fathers’ vision. What they gave us was extraordinary. It must be protected from tyrants like those in Congress today. They are tyrants who fear and despise us. There is no ambiguity. They are against us.
President Obama must veto this bill or confess his hypocrisy as a champion of liberty. And members of Congress who support military detentions or the Patriot Act must be targeted for defeat in 2012. They are the greatest threats facing this country today.
They are traitors to freedom. They are Enemies of the Constitution. And they deserve to be branded Enemies of the State.
#####
Susan Lindauer is the author of Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq.
View the original article at Veterans Today
<><><>
Terrorism Breeds Terrorism 