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

by Susan Lindauer

  There was a critical exception. Malaysia’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Hasmy Agam and his senior diplomatic staff on the Security Council got involved on the sidelines, from the very beginning of talks in November, 2000.

  Malaysia’s Embassy provided invaluable technical guidance vital to success. Because of their input, we guaranteed that Iraq’s commitment to weapons inspections would comport with U.N. standards for disarmament verification, as necessary to fulfill its obligations for ending the sanctions.

  Likewise, Syria deserves praise for its urgent actions to avert war, as a member of the Security Council. Syria’s Ambassador offered to act as a crisis mediator with Washington in the run up to the Invasion.

  In that success lies hope for future conflicts. The American people and the world community urgently need to know that engagement can be trusted to produce results that are highly effective and reliable.

  Dialogue can accomplish the world’s goals—with a little help from democracy.

  I am a huge believer in democracy. It’s a precious thing for ordinary people to contribute to public debates. Democracy empowers the people to offer our own ideas for problem solving. The practice of those freedoms and the process of seeking public input are messy, argumentative and contentious. Yet it’s vital for the public good. We must take special care to safeguard those civil rights, and not tolerate them to be degraded by the “lip service” of Washington politicians.

  Throughout my nightmare on the Patriot Act, it struck me as unforgivable that American soldiers were sent to die and kill for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the practice of democracy at home was under siege. My crime was actively practicing freedom of speech and criticizing government policy. My team’s warnings about Iraq and 9/11 hit the mark with such a high degree of accuracy that the possibility of exposure frightened leaders in Washington and London.

  But perhaps that misses the point. Even if I had been wrong, I should have the right to speak.

  Alas, they had power. And they wanted me to understand that I had none.

  I was nothing. Just another American.

  Well, that’s fine with me. I happen to enjoy being “just another American.”

  There’s a ubiquitous saying that actions speak louder than words. In which case, all of us should sit up and take notice. The actions of Washington’s leaders betrayed a conviction that Americans should stay out of governance and policy making. If we interject ourselves into the public debate, trusting our rights to contribute, believing this country belongs to us, and our leaders should be accountable to us, then politicians in Washington have decided we should be removed and punished until we accept our disenfranchisement.

  Our participation is no longer welcomed.

  Worst of all, in the Patriot Act, Congress has created a weapon for punishment, if Americans don’t get the message. We can be silenced through secret accusations. The government has no burden to show evidence to a Judge or jury that a crime has been committed. The FBI and Prosecutors have no obligation to acknowledge alibis for the alleged wrongdoing. American citizens can be detained indefinitely without trial. They can lock us up on military bases, abusing the integrity of our soldiers, and deny us access to our attorneys.

  All constitutional protections are formally revoked.

  Wake up people! Americans are not nearly as frightened as they should be. The Patriot Act endangers our way of life as a country, and our purpose as a people.

  Many Americans would like to presume that George Bush did this. And he’s gone. So we’re safe now.

  No mistake could be greater. Republican and Democrats on Capitol Hill orchestrated this attack together. Yes, it was primarily carried out by supporters of Senator John McCain, who reigns over the Senate to this day. But my attackers were petty bureaucrats and party officials of the sort memorialized by Franz Kafka.

  They have not gone away. On the contrary, they have burrowed more deeply into the power structure. They remain entrenched in Washington society at all levels.

  Only now I fear they have learned to use the Patriot Act more effectively as a weapon against their fellow Americans. Their actions demonstrate that they will not be dissuaded by American traditions of liberty and justice that they swore to uphold

  That means this kind of thing is going to happen more and more frequently. They’re going to become bolder and more vicious—until Americans demand that the Patriot Act must be repealed.

  Free thinking Americans face the greatest risk of all—regardless of political stripe.

  I was the second American-born citizen targeted by the Patriot Act. I won’t be the last. If you don’t believe me, while I was under indictment, in Maryland where I live, State Police decided that local environmentalists campaigning to stop global warming qualified as potential “terrorists,” and should be subjected to surveillance allowed by the Patriot Act.

  Applying the ruthless power of the Patriot Act that equates civil disobedience with sedition, Maryland State Police targeted the Chesapeake Climate Action Network—though its members are dedicated to solar energy, wind power and recycling.

  In the twisted schematics of the new surveillance culture, the DC Anti-War Network got designated as a “white supremacist group.” Amnesty International got investigated for “civil rights violations.” Animal rights activists working with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) were labeled “a security threat.” Groups opposed to the death penalty were declared “potentially violent.”

  Invoking the Patriot Act, Maryland State Police tapped their phones and monitored the physical movements of group leaders, in broad surveillance operations. At least one State Trooper infiltrated several peace groups to monitor upcoming events.

  I ask myself often. How did America lose its heart? When did we lose faith in the values of liberty in our country?

  Because that’s what happening today. We are afraid of freedom.

  Unless we take action to repeal the Patriot Act, many more independent thinking Americans will get hurt. We should force our leaders to prove their loyalty to our democracy by disavowing its terrible precepts. It is a law of treachery. There’s nothing “patriotic” about tearing down our beloved Constitution. That’s traitorous.

  For myself, I have no regrets for what I paid to support my values. I stood up for what I love. My work gave me the greatest sense of personal satisfaction and adventures that I could have hoped for.

  Knowing the consequences, I would change nothing, even if I could.

  These days I am a “free agent” for peace and non-violence. I still live in Takoma Park doing animal rescue work, with my little family of dachshunds and kitty cats.

  My Japanese weeping cherry tree, planted the week of my arrest, still grows in my front yard, serene and undisturbed by the tumultuous times of our world.

  Each spring, my peace tree blossoms in white petals again. And though all of us working together failed to stop this tragic War in Iraq, in my heart I am content to know that all of us tried so hard together.

  As Odysseus Elytis wrote about the fight against fascism in Greece: “Let them stone us. Let them say that we walk with our heads in the clouds. Those who have never felt, my friend, with what rock, what blood, what iron and fire we build, dream and sing.”626

  Five days before the inauguration of President Barak Obama, the Justice Department formally dismissed all charges against Susan Lindauer.627 In five years of indictment as an alleged “Iraqi Agent,” she was never convicted of any crime. And she never stopped demanding her rights to a trial.

  AFFIDAVIT OF

  PARKE GODFREY

  I am Dr. Parke Godfrey, a tenured associate professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at York University in Toronto, Canada. At the request of Ms. Lindauer, I am providing this brief affidavit describing parts of my testimony at a hearing before Judge Loretta Preska in June, 2008.

  9. I have known Ms. Lindauer since 1991, while I was working on my doctoral degree
at the University of Maryland, College Park. We were close friends until I moved to Toronto to accept a faculty post at York University in August of 1999.

  a. During that time, I spoke with Ms. Lindauer two or three times weekly, and we met once weekly, on average.

  b. Ms. Lindauer has an artistic and mercurial temperament. She is passionate as an activist supporting her causes. She is a creative writer and former journalist. I never observed mental instability or mental illness in her behavior.

  10. Ms. Lindauer had various concerns and predictions of terrorist attacks, which she confided in me and others.

  a. In the year 2000, coinciding with the Lockerbie Trial, Ms. Lindauer confided in me on several occasions her concern that the next terrorist attack on the United States would involve airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings. She warned me to stay out of New York City.

  b. In the spring and summer of 2001, on several occasions Ms. Lindauer expressed heightened concern that a terrorist attack was in the works that would strike the southern part of Manhattan. She claimed it would reprise the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. She described the attack as completing the cycle started in that first attack.

  c. I have read articles by Michael Collins describing Ms. Lindauer’s 9/11 warning, and I am satisfied that he has accurately described my testimony before Judge Preska in June, 2008.

  11. I was involved in Ms. Lindauer’s case in various ways after her arrest.

  a. In September, 2004, I was interviewed by the FBI in Mississauga (adjacent to Toronto) in the presence of a Royal Canadian Mounted Policeman. (The RCMP insisted upon this as the interview was in Canada, and I was a Canadian resident). I spoke with FBI Special Agent Suzan LeTourneau. While the interview focused on mundane details of Ms. Lindauer’s life and her acquaintances, the conversation did touch briefly upon the indictment on Ms. Lindauer, and her predictions.

  b. I made myself available to speak with the investigator working for her defense attorney. I was prepared for a lengthy conversation, including a discussion of Ms. Lindauer’s 9/11 warning. I was surprised when the defense investigator cut short the conversation after only five to ten minutes. His questions seemed far inadequate for the scope of the indictment against Ms. Lindauer, and for what I felt I had to share with her Defense Attorney.

  c. Several months later, I contacted Ms. Lindauer’s uncle, Ted Lindauer, who spoke with me at greater length about several issues in her case. I can verify that Ms. Lindauer felt compelled to seek her uncle’s assistance interviewing witnesses for her case, before she got sent to Carswell.

  d. In early December 2005, I believe, a few months after Ms. Lindauer had been sent to Carswell Prison, I spoke with the psychologist handling her competence evaluation for the Court. During our conversation, I attempted to confirm with him that Ms. Lindauer had made predictions about a terrorist attack in Manhattan to me and others prior to the 9/11 attack. He seemed to have no interest in hearing this. Our conversation was brief.

  12. I continued to be involved in Ms. Lindauer’s case, in hearings leading up to her trial, which never transpired.

  a. In my opinion, contrary with the Justice Department’s lawyers, Ms. Lindauer is now, and always was, competent to stand trial. The decision to accuse her of incompetence was baffling to me and many others. I was forced to conclude that it was politically motivated to block her request for a trial.

  b. While she was still detained in prison, I offered to travel from Toronto and testify at any competency hearing, as a character witness, on her mental competence, on what I knew of her political activities before her indictment, about her warnings of terrorist attacks, and any other aspects for which the Court might be interested.

  c. I attended the hearing on forcible drugging in May, 2006. I offered to testify on that day. In fact, I arrived at the Court, assuming I was to testify. However, her attorney, Mr. Sam Talkin did not call me to testify that day. In conversation that day, I told him that she had made warnings of a terrorist attack to me and to others in advance of 9/11. I told him that I was mortified by what the Court seemed to be doing.

  d. In June 2008, two years later, Ms. Lindauer was finally allowed to have a hearing on her competence to stand trial. I testified before Judge Preska, who had replaced Judge Mukasey after his retirement, that I considered Ms. Lindauer fully competent in all ways, and devoid of mental illness or instability. I testified about the terrorist warnings, and how I had spoken with the FBI in September, 2004.

  Despite my friendship with Ms. Lindauer, and my dislike and distrust of activities of the Federal Administration at the time, I tried to keep an open mind and to cooperate with the prosecution. I could only hope that the government had just cause in pursuing such a case, given the vigor and energy they put in it, despite what that would mean for Susan. Otherwise, it is a poor indictment for justice.

  On the other hand, I have never had any direct reasons to believe the points of the indictment against Ms. Lindauer, or evidence myself of them. I have confidence and trust in Ms. Lindauer. Furthermore, I have been completely appalled over the way the Justice Department proceeded in its dealings with Ms. Lindauer, as I hope most anyone familiar with her case would be.

  Throughout this entire ordeal, Ms. Lindauer has suffered harassment. She faced inexcusable delays in setting a trial date (or in dropping the charges). She was repeatedly questioned in Court over the reliability of her terrorist warnings, despite that they had been corroborated by me and by many others in affidavits and under oath, in spoken testimony. She was incarcerated in a mental facility within a federal prison for seven months, 1,300 miles from her home for supposed observation. And then held in confinement for months afterwards. The FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s behavior in Ms. Lindauer case were abhorrent. It’s quite clear that much more was going on.

  Susan Lindauer’s story should be told.

  Dr. Parke Godfrey July 1, 2010

  AFFIDAVIT OF

  THAYER LINDAUER

  I have practiced corporate law for 40 years in the U.S. and international arenas. Though my expertise lies outside criminal law, I took my degree at the University of Chicago and I have extensive legal experience. I am quite satisfied that my niece, Susan Lindauer, has accurately described my involvement in her legal fight, and the events related to her incarceration at Carswell Prison.

  As she relates, six months prior to her imprisonment, I interviewed several important witnesses in her case, who forthrightly authenticated her claims. Those witnesses included Edward MacKechnie, Scottish Solicitor for the Lockerbie Trial, who validated Susan’s long-time work relationship with Dr. Richard Fuisz and his known affiliation to the Central Intelligence Agency. I spoke with Paul Hoven, who admitted his role as one of Susan’s handlers, and further identified Dr. Fuisz as her second, CIA handler, overseeing her activities at the United Nations. I spoke with Parke Godfrey about Susan’s 9/11 warning, and other assundry issues in her case. During her imprisonment, I spoke with a number of other witnesses and friends of Susan’s, including, I believe, Ian Ferguson, the Scottish journalist and expert on Lockerbie.

  There is no question but that Susan’s history as an Asset, supervised by members of U.S. Intelligence, would have been easily proven to the satisfaction of the Court.

  For those of us who trust in the legal traditions of this country, her case marked a stunning reversal of expectations. Susan correctly relates that I have tremendous respect for Judge Michael Mukasey and the predicament that he faced. There were serious questions of prosecutorial misconduct and withholding exculpatory knowledge from the Court, since it was quite clear the Justice Department did not want to admit Susan’s role in Pre-War Intelligence or the 9/11 investigation, including her 9/11 warning. To incarcerate an American citizen without a trial or due process, however, opposes all of the values that the U.S. Courts seek to uphold.

  Though it might seem unlikely, Susan has accurately described the Court proceedings leading up to her prison surrender. That Septem
ber day, we had no idea why the court had ordered her to appear. Her public attorney insisted the Psychiatric Report by Dr. Stuart Kleinman was still unavailable to him. Until we got to Court, we had no idea they intended to send her to prison, or deny her rights to a competence hearing, which is routine procedure.

  I did instruct her to fire Sam Talkin, and name me as co-counsel of her defense, so that I could demand a hearing on her behalf. It is true that the Court clerk instructed us that if Susan tried such a thing, she would be seized immediately by U.S. Marshals, and would forfeit her bail for the remainder of the proceedings. She was advised that if she consented to delay the hearing until after the Prison Evaluation, she would have three days to get her affairs in order. Judge Mukasey amended that to 10 days.

  There was no doubt that Susan wanted the hearing.

  It is possible that Judge Mukasey expected Carswell’s evaluation to be very brief. Normally, these sorts of evaluations take 6 to 8 weeks, for other non-political defendants. Indeed, after the court meeting, Judge Mukasey’s clerk suggested to me that Susan would probably come home before Christmas.

  Unfortunately, the politics of her contributions to Pre-War Intelligence and the 9/11 investigation swamped the proceedings. She has not exaggerated the threat of “indefinite” detention that she faced, or the aggressive push to forcibly drug her with Haldol.

  It is absolutely correct that Carswell’s psychology staff, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York, the FBI and the main Justice Department had direct knowledge that Susan had told the truth about her Asset work. I have spoken to witnesses myself, who told me that they assured the FBI and/or psychologists at Carswell that Susan was telling the truth. I must conclude the request for forcible drugging was politically motivated.