EXTREME PREJUDICE: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq

by Susan Lindauer

  Outside of Carswell, reality swept over my life again. Friends phoned to cheer my courage for standing strong in the Courts. They couldn’t believe the government questioned my competence, much less tried to forcibly “cure” my confidence as a woman Asset. Again and again, friends and colleagues swore they had never seen signs of mental illness or instability in my life.

  Everyone agreed it was awfully convenient for the pro-war camp that I got shipped off to a Texas military base for a bogus psychiatric evaluation. Their verdict was unanimous. I must know something that politicians didn’t want my fellow Americans to hear. (Boy was that an understatement!)

  Within days of my homecoming, some of my old gang from the Hunan rang up to assure me they had contacted Talkin, while the debate on forcible drugging raged on, vouching for my close relationship with Paul Hoven and his murky ties to U.S. Intelligence. That wasn’t “in my head,” either. Talkin had known it all along.

  Some of those friends invited me to speak before the Sarah McLendon Society at the National Press Club in Washington, dedicated to the former first lady of Washington journalism.

  That speech, two weeks after my release from prison, turned the wheels of fate again.

  In the small audience of sophisticated Washington insiders, there sat an illustrious silver-haired gentleman, with a deep Rhode Island accent, among the smattering of Congressional staffers, Washington journalists, think tank executives and the like, including reps for Naval Intelligence and the State Department.

  His name was Mr. Brian Shaughnessy, and he looked mighty perplexed.

  As it happens, Shaughnessy was former Chief of the Fraud and Public Corruption Division at the federal court in Washington. The founding partner of an exclusive law practice,553 Shaughnessy, Volzer & Gagner, in his former career at the Justice Department, he was the senior federal prosecutor assigned to the Court of Chief Judge John J. Sirica. Nicknamed “Maximum John” for his tough sentencing, Judge Sirica catapulted to fame handling the Watergate cases against G. Gordon Liddy and members of the Nixon Administration. In Judge Sirica’s court, Shaughnessy convicted two Congress members, among a stellar load of major corruption cases. Today he specializes in complex domestic and international security cases.

  Behind his congenial and gentlemanly demeanor, Shaughnessy boasts a formidable and incisive legal mind. Listening to my address at the National Press Club that evening, Shaughnessy posed a question from the audience that cut to the crux of the problem:

  If the Prosecutor had any sort of real evidence against me, why for heavens sake, would he not force the case to trial? Why would any prosecutor allow my attorney to use an “incompetence defense,” without protest? Why not attack it?

  As Shaughnessy put it bluntly, “When I worked as a prosecutor, I wanted people competent, so I could convict them and send them to prison! I would never allow a defense attorney to make those claims without a serious challenge. I would fight it. That’s what a Prosecutor does in this situation. We don’t like it! If it was me, I’d be madder than heck that you got declared incompetent.”

  If there was real evidence that I broke the law.

  Shaughnessy smelled a rat.

  A senior law practitioner, who frequently takes the most complicated domestic and international cases for sport and personal challenge—and wins, Shaughnessy requested very politely if he might review the evidence in my case.

  We struck up quite a conversation after my talk. Later that evening, I returned to Shaughnessy’s office for a longer discourse on my ordeal. We were joined by another man who would become extremely important in resurrecting my legal reputation from the ashes, Mr. Thomas J. Mattingly.

  Mattingly proved to be an esoteric genius, a philosopher activist in his own right, with an amazing wealth of knowledge on a vast array of domestic and international issues. A veritable encyclopedia of knowledge, he could debate every issue with finesse and thoughtful detail.

  With a twinkle in his eyes, Mattingly turned to Shaughnessy. “You really should take over this case, Brian. You could knock down the Patriot Act— At least punch a few good holes in it. Would that be enough of a challenge for you?”

  It was as if the fates clicked everything into place at last. And so it came to pass that two weeks after my release from prison, my Defense took on a new attorney, as a back stop to Talkin. It marked a critical transition for my struggle. Because shockingly, my ordeal was not over yet.

  Happily at last, in Brian Shaughnessy, I found legal counsel who understood how all the pieces of the intelligence world and Washington policymaking fit together. It was a pivotal moment. In a single evening, his involvement, with a helpful push from Mattingly, reconfigured the dynamic of my battle at all levels.

  The night had greater significance that I was yet to discover.

  The Sarah McClendon Society had a comfortable feel to it, which might be explained by the cross over from our old Thursday night crowd at the Hunan.

  The chief organizer of the Sarah McClendon Society is John Edward Hurley, a Civil War historian on the Confederate side. A southern gentleman from Virginia and an absolute delight in conversation, Hurley was an original member of our old Hunan crowd. Most famously, he took on Oliver North and his cabal years before, ousting him from the Confederate Hall, where North was holding meetings as a front, according to Hurley. And Hurley had personally observed my close relationship with Hoven, throughout our many years of clandestine conversations.

  Hurley delighted in reminding me that spooks frequently dropped by our Thursday night gatherings, because we made up such an interesting crowd. And they were often invited by Paul Hoven. He offered to testify to that in Court.

  Kelly O’Meara was another member of the Sarah McClendon society, who crossed over from our Thursday nights at the Hunan. A former investigative journalist and congressional Chief of Staff for Rep. Andrew Forbes (GOP-Long Island, NY), O’Meara had just published a cutting edge book, “Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill.”554

  O’Meara protested that she’d known Hoven for 20 years.555 She declared that Hoven “talked about (me) all the time.” She described Paul as an “intelligence passer,” and reminded me that some of Hoven’s closest friends are legendary in the intelligence community.

  Hoven used to take O’Meara shooting at the farm of Bill Weisenberger, a famous spook with longstanding ties to Middle East operations involving Libya and Edwin Wilson. And Hoven bragged about outing Oliver North on Iran-Contra, along with Gene Wheaton, and his work for the Project on Military Procurement. Those sorts of bona fides say a lot.

  O’Meara offered to testify to that in Court. If Hoven told the FBI a different story, then he lied and obstructed the FBI investigation. In which case, Hoven broke the law.

  That night it was evident the force of truth would not crawl away, disgraced, for the comfort and convenience of Washington’s elite.

  I recall it as an extraordinary moment.

  In prison, the Justice Department had isolated me—and my public attorney, Sam Talkin, whined that nobody wanted to help me. Yet here at the National Press Club, I sat with supremely credible individuals who freely vouched for me.

  So where did psychiatry find the gall to attack me?

  A highly respected author and former journalist herself, O’Meara showed how my case marks a frightening trend in psychiatry today. Apparently, it’s becoming the norm to attack healthy, functioning Americans, while fighting to limit the rights of individuals to repudiate psychiatric opinions in Court.

  Her book, “Psyched Out” exposes the dangers of mind-altering psychotropic drugs, and the links of prescription drug use to school shootings by teenagers and killing rampages by adults.556 O’Meara documents that a startling number of killers, who snap suddenly, share one commonality. They started taking anti-depressants, particularly Prozac, days or weeks before their murder spree.

  According to O’Meara’s research, Prozac leads the industry in serious adverse eff
ects— like killing family members or school classmates. But drug companies like Eli Lilly are powerful enough to suppress media reports of the extreme social consequences of these adverse drug effects. As a result, ordinary Americans are largely ignorant of the links between anti-depressants and sudden violent behavior, including murders. Suicides also rise dramatically after starting anti-depressants.

  “Psyched Out” goes on to examine how psychiatry contrives to create “diseases of the brain.” Citing medical sources, O’Meara argues that there’s no scientific proof that imbalances in brain chemicals occur at all, something psychiatry doesn’t like to admit.557

  Leading medical experts agree.

  “Although a physician may tell a patient that a chemical imbalance causes their depression, the physician would be hard pressed to provide any evidence to support this claim. There is no test available that would demonstrate that any patient has a ‘biological depression’ as opposed to any other type, or even that such biological depressions exist.” Dr. Antonuccio. Psychiatric Times.558

  “At present, there are no known bio-chemical imbalances in the brain of typical psychiatric patients—until they are given psychiatric drugs.” Dr. Peter Breggen, M.D “Brain Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry.”559

  “There are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder.”560 Dr. Loren Mosher, M.D former chief of the National Institute of Mental Health Center for the Study of Schizophrenia.

  “There are no tests available for assessing the chemical status of a living person’s brain.”561 Elliot S. Valenstein, PhD, “Blaming the Brain.”

  “Psyched Out” was illuminating to say the least, a wonderful breath of fresh air after my ordeal at Carswell.

  Of course psychiatry predicates its medical authority on the treatment of these so-called “chemical imbalances.” Despite a very poor track record interacting with external measures of “reality,” psychiatry has learned to maneuver cleverly through the Courts, denying individuals the right to question the “medical” basis for a “diagnosis.” According to O’Meara, efforts to block court testimony by family and friends, who would throw cold water on psych opinions, has become an increasingly common method for defending the illusion of their medical authority.

  It’s a frightening trend, and all because psychiatry cannot withstand exposure to external measures and events. What’s more, ordinary behaviors and reactions to life—like adolescent angst, grief for a death, anxiety over job loss or divorce—are typed as “mentally defective responses,” indicating the presence of long term mental “disease.” That’s become an excuse for forcing drug interventions on individuals. Adolescents and young adults, for example, face tremendous school pressure to comply with drug “treatment” plans, only to suffer adverse reactions to the drugs. When that happens, psychiatry prescribes additional drugs to cope with problems created by the first set of drugs. As a result, Americans are all doped up, affecting behavior and coping mechanisms—and not for the better.

  And don’t forget– the number one way Carswell restores competence is to take pre-trial defendants off these drugs. After a short detox, I saw first-hand myself how 9 times out of 10, they’d be just fine, and ready for trial. Somewhere along the way, the women got mis-diagnosed for non-existent conditions. But there was nothing wrong with these women. They suffered no diminished capacity of any kind. I listened to women thank Carswell for showing they were mentally okay.

  Finally, “Psyched Out” raises serious questions as to whether women are getting targeted by psychiatry, particularly.

  By example, Eli Lilly has been marketing Prozac under the name, Sarafem, for women suffering pre-menstrual tension. The two drugs are identical in composition, except that Prozac is a green pill, while Sarafem has a pink and purple color. The color choice affects “how women react to the drug,” according to Eli Lilly.562 Women taking Sarafem have no idea that they’re actually ingesting Prozac, the most powerful anti-depressant on the market.

  Would women still want the drug if they had the facts? And since when has menstruation become a mental illness anyway?

  Psychiatry’s attacks on women are hardly subtle.

  In my case, confidence, motivation and pride for my achievements got stigmatized as “grandiosity” and a “mental defect.”563 That’s the new language used by psychiatry to attack a woman’s strength, though the same qualities in a male colleague would be praised as ambition and perseverance. That’s how they attacked me.

  Citing its “medical authority,” psychiatry argued that a lowly woman like myself could not possibly have engaged in anti-terrorism work. I must be suffering a “mental disease” for believing that I had done so (for nine years). Naturally then, I must suffer myself to be “cured,” in order to unlearn my confidence in my life.564

  It was blatant sexism, with no “clinical” link to reality—since I could prove I did these things. It should be a red flag that psychiatry exalts women who are submissive and dependent—and coincidentally, more needy for approval. Docile, insecure women are ideal, since they are more easily persuaded to accept instruction as part of the “doctor-patient” relationship. The abuse I suffered exemplifies how psychiatry punishes women who deviate from social weakness, and challenge their authority.

  In their way of thinking, we are disobedient little girls who need to be punished with drugs and “treatment.”

  Those attitudes did not change after my release from Carswell, unfortunately. Now psychiatry demanded that I must submit to a process of re-education to eradicate my strength, independence, and decision-making skills. I would be “healthy” when I no longer exhibited “symptoms” of confidence and self motivation, and when I stopped believing that I have led a meaningful and productive life.

  When I stopped feeling empowered and goal-oriented, when I learned self-doubt, insecurity and weakness, then at last I would be a “real woman.” I would be cured.

  If that sounds seriously disturbed, it is.

  If I had not fought back, those arguments would be continuing against me today.

  Bottom line: psychiatry is big business with big profits. And the courts are a marketplace for clients. Psychiatry and pharmacology are looking to build market share together, in a quest for revenues. That’s what it all comes back to. Making money.

  And so my nightmare was not over, though I had defeated psychiatry on the critical issue of forcible drugging.

  On that basis, Pre-Trial Services demanded that I report to Counseling Plus in Silver Spring, Maryland for yet another psychological evaluation, followed by counseling.

  Thankfully, at the community level, politics was removed from the “diagnosis,” as Ted Lindauer and I had expected.

  And what did the Maryland evaluation find? That I suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)— caused by my experiences at Carswell. And nothing else.565

  Counseling Plus reported that I was “fully grounded in reality in all my sensory faculties times four.” Other than anxiety and tension caused by my false imprisonment, I showed no signs of mood disturbances. There was no other source for my PTSD symptoms.566

  In other words, according to this “diagnosis,” if I had not got shipped off to prison without a trial or hearing, and threatened with forcible drugging, I would not suffer symptoms of any kind at all. I showed no signs of other “mental defects.”

  Like Dr. Taddesseh before Carswell, for the next year, Counseling Plus reported that I suffered “no depression or bipolar disorder, and no signs of psychosis or psychiatric symptoms of any kind. (Lindauer) is fully oriented to her surroundings times four.”567

  Nevertheless, I was forced to undergo nine months of “counseling” until I refused to go back.

  So what did we talk about? Why, the corruption of psychology, of course, and how much I despised it. How it deprived me of my legal rights and reputation. I had nothing else to say to these people. Every Saturda
y got ruined by forced recitations of the awful conditions at Carswell, and the horrific abuses of prisoners, or how psychiatrists knowingly and deliberately lied in my case. It explains why my awful memories are so vivid to this day.

  Beyond that, Dr. Tressa Burton, the court psychologist, surfed the internet for clothes and weekend entertainment for her daughter, while I was forced to sit in her office, bored out of my mind. She surfed the internet constantly during our meetings. A couple of times she handed me women’s magazines, like Good Housekeeping and Cosmopolitan, and asked if I saw any articles I’d like to discuss. Or if I caught Oprah’s show that week. We had nothing to chat about together.

  I saw with blinding clarity that psychology is about pop culture. It’s the fad of the moment. Pretty much you have to turn off your brain, and blather from your mouth. I’d look at the clock, and ten minutes would have gone by. And I’d think to myself, oh God, how dull! How much more of this can I take?

  It was a huge waste of my time and your tax dollars. But I had to stay the full hour, so Counseling Plus could make money off the feds. I learned quickly that even the subsection of psychology that recognized the corruption in my case, lacked the integrity to turn down federal tax dollars. They used defendants as an ATM machine to make cash withdrawals off the state and federal budgets.

  Counseling Plus could have cut back the number of meetings I was forced to attend, since it had no value to my life. But Burton could not make money if she did. And it was always about the money. Psychology doesn’t want clients to be strong or independent. They can’t keep those clients. That’s why they try to focus all of your energies on bad things. It doesn’t surprise me that people who participate in long-term counseling have incredibly unhappy lives.

  Psychology did teach me one very important thing: Focusing all of your energies on bad experiences is a stupid and wasteful activity. There’s no benefit to reliving your worst nightmares over and over again. On the contrary, it’s a fairly destructive pass-time.