HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » Former CIA Asset (Turned ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 03:26 PM

Former CIA Asset (Turned Whistleblower) - Susan Lindauer Comes Clean Re: Fed Invlovement in 9/11...

As you'll see, her story was about ten years in the making and she's paid a heavy price for her courage & honesty.






Also, her book Extreme Prejudice chronicles, "real facts surrounding the CIA’s advance warnings of 9/11" and "offers a critical examination of the Patriot Act’s assault on defendant rights in a Court of law."

.....http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com

23 replies, 4679 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Former CIA Asset (Turned Whistleblower) - Susan Lindauer Comes Clean Re: Fed Invlovement in 9/11... (Original post)
Indi Guy Aug 2012 OP
libodem Aug 2012 #1
wildbilln864 Aug 2012 #2
Indi Guy Sep 2012 #3
William Seger Sep 2012 #4
Indi Guy Sep 2012 #5
William Seger Sep 2012 #6
Indi Guy Sep 2012 #7
William Seger Sep 2012 #8
Indi Guy Sep 2012 #9
Celebration Sep 2012 #10
William Seger Sep 2012 #12
Indi Guy Sep 2012 #13
William Seger Sep 2012 #14
Celebration Sep 2012 #16
William Seger Sep 2012 #17
Celebration Sep 2012 #18
William Seger Sep 2012 #19
Celebration Sep 2012 #20
William Seger Sep 2012 #21
hack89 Sep 2012 #22
Celebration Sep 2012 #23
skor584_2il Sep 2012 #11
hack89 Sep 2012 #15

Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 08:45 PM

1. bookmarking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 11:36 PM

2. thanks, k & r. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 04:06 AM

3. Shameless k...

...for those who might have missed this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 10:13 AM

4. Link for those who might have missed it

"Lindauer was found mentally unfit to stand trial in two separate hearings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer

Her claims to have worked for the CIA and DIA seem to be as delusional as her claim to have psychically predicted the 9/11 attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 07:47 PM

5. If you watch the video with an open mind...

...you may be persuaded to her side of the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #5)

Fri Sep 21, 2012, 01:15 AM

6. Persuaded by what?

The main reason that she was twice judged to be mentally unfit to stand trial is that she appears to be living in an imaginary world, which is to say there's no evidence whatsoever backing up any of her claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #6)

Fri Sep 21, 2012, 03:25 AM

7. So...

...it's totally impossible that she was judged unfit for trial because the prosecution didn't want certain facts to emerge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #7)

Fri Sep 21, 2012, 10:17 AM

8. Not "totally impossible" but that's not the right question

The question is, is there any reason to believe her claims? Not by the conventional definition of "reason."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #8)

Fri Sep 21, 2012, 12:05 PM

9. How can her claims be believed or refuted if they're not heard?

I'd sure want to hear what a person has to say for him/her-self before summarily writing them off.

Also, allot can be determined about a person's credibility by observing their manner as well as hearing the content of what they put forward. A good observer of character can generally discern whether or not a person is believable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 09:05 AM

10. one reason

She was charged under the Patriot Act, held for five years, and never brought to trial. That alone should make you perk up your ears and listen carefully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 01:42 PM

12. A reason to "listen carefully" is not a reason to be gullible

For example, she was charged with acting as an unregistered foreign agent attempting to influence government action, which seemed to me to have been around a lot longer the Patriot Act, so I looked up her indictment: She was charged under Title 18, Section 951 of the US Code, which is not the Patriot Act. Claiming that it was the unpopular Patriot Act seems to be a deliberate attempt to gain undeserved sympathy for her claimed injustice.

She wasn't brought to trial because court-appointed psychiatrists found that she had a "long delusional history." The judge basically ruled that she lacked any credibility, which meant that it wouldn't have been possible for her to influence anyone as a foreign agent. And this, by the way, was all well before she started telling stories about the Israelis shooting a video of the first plane hit, which is what she claims Bush saw before going into that Florida classroom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #12)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:00 PM

13. You've agreed that...

...it's not totally impossible that she was judged unfit for trial because the prosecution didn't want certain facts to emerge. So, on the off chance that she might be telling the truth, what's stopping you from watching the video?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:01 PM

14. That really doesn't make any sense

If the prosecution didn't want "certain facts to emerge," then they wouldn't have indicted her in the first place, or they would have just dropped the case when they reached that decision. But it was the judge who found her mentally unfit, based on examination by psychiatrists, so you need to drag the psychiatrists and the judge into your conspiracy theory. Anyway, she wasn't telling wild tales about 9/11 conspiracies back then -- that came later.

I watched about 10 minutes of the video and just didn't see any good reason to watch any more. She does strike me as being mentally ill, but whether or not she is, the point remains that there is not a single good reason to believe her 9/11 story.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:29 PM

16. you aren't being logical

Yes they would have indicted her, if they wanted her put away where she would not be able to tell their story. The longer they could keep her locked up without charging her, the better. The psychiatrists that the court believed were government psychiatrists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:22 PM

17. Your "just so" story isn't logical

It's an "ad hoc fallacy" or "special pleading" explanation for events that just attempts to rationalize away the doubts about your conclusion. How would indicting her prevent her from telling her story? Do you imagine that she wasn't allowed any contact while she was held? How does eventually dropping the charges help with your claimed objective of keeping her quiet? Are you aware that she wasn't telling the psychiatrists any wild stories about 9/11 but she was telling them she was an angel with psychic powers? What "story" exactly do you think the government was trying to prevent her from telling?

If you've got a logical argument here, I'd love to hear it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:57 PM

18. if she is indicted, she is discredited

That is how! She couldn't go on talk shows or television. There may be goverment psychiatrists who would say anything, I have no idea. All I know is that they were not neutral psychiatrists.

Eventually a part of the story got out anyway, or haven't you heard?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=3smid=tw-share&

She was a big witness that the government had advance warning for 9/11, and that it was used as a pretext for war in Iraq. That may be known by all of us now, but this was a big deal a few years ago, plus she had details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #18)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:46 AM

19. Point is, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that

Read this article from 2004: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/magazine/susan-lindauer-s-mission-to-baghdad.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Three things to note: 1) She was out on bail and talking to a reporter, not locked away; 2) at that time, she was not telling wild stories about 9/11 conspiracies or even advance knowledge; and 3) at that time, she wasn't even claiming to have been a CIA asset -- all of that came later. I'm sure you can come up with another "just so" story to explain all that, but since it's extremely difficult to believe that the CIA would ever use such an obviously disturbed person as an asset, and since there's no evidence whatsoever that they did, there is no reason to believe that "she was a big witness that the government had advance warning for 9/11." I also have my doubts that she is a psychic angel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #19)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:32 PM

20. well from that same article

Not long after their first dinner, Hoven introduced Lindauer to his friend Dr. Richard Fuisz, a globe-trotting Virginia-based businessman whom Lindauer described to me as ''my contact in the C.I.A.''

So she was claiming to be a CIA asset then.

And then there is this--

Citing unnamed sources, The Sunday Herald, a Scottish newspaper, reported in 2000 that Fuisz had been the C.I.A.'s most important agent in Damascus during the 80's. ''This is not an issue I can confirm or deny,'' Fuisz told The Herald. ''I am not allowed to speak about these issues. In fact, I can't even explain why I can't speak about these issues.''


Fuisz claims to have known her but that is about it. Is he telling the whole truth or not? I have no idea, but it isn't as if she is the only one who said he was CIA.

Read the article a little more carefully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #20)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:58 PM

21. No, "... my contact in the C.I.A." is not the same as

... claiming to be a CIA "asset" -- an employed agent. If she was working for the CIA, she would have had a boss or a handler, not a "contact." That "asset" claim and calling Fuisz her boss were added to her later stories about having advance knowledge of the 9/11 attack and Fuisz seeing an Israeli-made video of the first plane hit. At the time of that article, she was only claiming to have been a "back channel" between the Bush administration and Iraq, not a CIA asset.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #13)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 06:08 PM

22. So why did the prosecution prosecute her in the first place?

and you do realize there is absolutely no evidence she was CIA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 07:34 AM

23. I wonder!

It appears that she had contacts with someone purported to be CIA. I have no idea if her story is true or not. But why did they charge her? I have no idea. Whether nuts or not, she was passionately anti-war, and may have been telling everyone the reasons for the Iraq War were manufactured. She was a loose cannon.................. In those days, we actually didn't KNOW the evidence was manufactured, like we do now, so they did now want people spreading that around. She definitely had ties to the Iraqis, so she probably had tales to tell and was telling them.

Just a guess but she probably did have ties to the CIA but was not being paid for it. She probably provided some info that was anit-war in nature. She was probably charged because she could not be trusted and was starting to talk. Back then the media was all into believing the weapons of mass distruction theory and TPTB did not want to disturb that meme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 07:40 PM

11. wow very informative stuff

 

definitely bookmarking this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 08:19 PM

15. She is a court certified insane person - and she never was a CIA agent

But the second judge, Loretta A. Preska of Federal District Court, ruled late Monday that while Ms. Lindauer was “highly intelligent” and “generally capable of functioning at a high level in many ways,” she also was suffering from a mental disease or defect.

As a result, the judge said, Ms. Lindauer was “unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against her or to assist properly in her defense.”

The judge cited the testimony of a government psychiatrist who said that Ms. Lindauer claimed to have special powers and that she had indicated she once met with Osama bin Laden, who disclosed to her the location of a bomb. The judge said that demonstrated “a lack of connection with reality.”

Judge Preska also cited Ms. Lindauer’s behavior in court last year, when, after being admonished not to speak without first consulting with her lawyer, she stuffed tissues in her mouth. That was “not the response of someone rationally connected to the proceedings,” Judge Preska said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/nyregion/17lindauer.html?_r=0

In 2005 she was incarcerated at Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas, for psychological evaluation then moved to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. In 2006, she was released from prison after judge Michael B. Mukasey ruled that Lindauer was unfit to stand trial and could not be forced to take antipsychotic medication to make her competent to stand trial. He noted that the severity of Lindauer's mental illness, which he described as a "lengthy delusional history", weakened the prosecution's case. In his decision he wrote, "Lindauer ... could not act successfully as an agent of the Iraqi government without in some way influencing normal people .... There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have. The indictment charges only what it describes as an unsuccessful attempt to influence an unnamed government official, and the record shows that even lay people recognize that she is seriously disturbed."

In 2008, Loretta A. Preska of the Federal District Court in New York City reaffirmed that Lindauer was mentally unfit to stand trial.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer

She was never a CIA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread