Susan of Grandeur

A Tough Sell on Capitol Hill, part four
May 22 2010


From Unregistered to Unfit
As a congressional aide in 1994 Susam Lindauer supported the claims of Dr. Richard Fuisz’, as explained in part three. This was a vague claim of knowledge of the true bombers of Flight 103, Syrians rather than the Libyans charged.

This was a small episode, however, and Lindauer is most famously known for activities a decade later. She got in serious legal/political trouble after a January 2003 attempt to urge the Bush administration to rethink its push for war in Iraq - and reportedly getting paid for it by Saddam Hussein’s government.

As it so happens, Lindauer’s second cousin was President Bush’s chief of staff Andy Card, and it seems it was her attempt to get leverage by playing the Andy card that got her noticed. Some kind of investigation then found she had met with Iraqi agents in Baghdad in 2002 and accepted $5,000 in cash and a vial of anthrax. Kidding on the second one. [1]

However she got the idea, Lindauer was jailed in March 2004 for the good advice and acting as an “unregistered agent” of Iraq. While the occupation ground on, Lindauer had her head examined and was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial or, by extension it’s implied, to do much else. This is a tactic used both to smear critics and also to protect the ill. In this case, multiple doctors and anecdotal evidence agree Lindauer has psychic powers and a special destiny, or suffers paranoia and delusions of grandeur, depending. [1]

It was decided she would have to take anti-psychotics to “become competent” for trial, and she refused to accept the need (or maybe was afraid of dampening her special powers). Judge Michael Mukasey of Federal District Court in Manhattan decided the Government’s case was not strong or important enough to warrant forced medication. So she was released on bail – 100 times her alleged payment from Iraq - in September 2006. On effectively dismissing the government’s case, Mukasey told the New York Times “there is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have.” [1]

2009: Sage Susan Speaks
She would continue to make furtive attempts, of course, and eventually returned to the Lockerbie case. In a letter that she sent to Professor Black’s site of that name, just before Abdelbaset al Megrahi’s release in 2009, Lindauer made an interesting string of statements. First, she supported the controversial decision to send Megrahi home, as he was fully innocent. But Abu Nidal was involved, based on “confessions,” and he had been harbored once by Libya. Therefore, “Libya would not be entitled to rescind its apology.” [2]

Nidal is suspected of working for the US all along, but I’ve not studied that nor seen any compelling evidence of his involvement in PA103. It was megrahi’s (and Fhimah’s) plot that was the case against Libya, not hosting Abu Nidal, and, as Professor Black pointed out, there has been no “apology.” “[Libya] has acknowledged responsibility for the acts of its citizens. If Mr Megrahi's conviction is overturned there is then no Libyan citizen convicted of anything for which the state has accepted responsibility.” [2]

Perhaps to build up her unfitness resume, she explained her special claims to authority:
“During negotiations for the Lockerbie trial -- which I started in New York with Libya's diplomats at the UN -- I saw documents* which prove Abu Talb and Ahmed Jibril orchestrated the attack. Abu Nidal was the third head of the hydra.” [emph mine]
She may have been involved in some way, but not in a position to “start” negotiations on such an issue. For this she cites papers that she delivered.in late 1997, plus “back-channel talks” where she personally “assured [Gaddafi’s] government that his two men would have access to witnesses and documents to prove their innocence.” [2] I could see Gaddafi being influenced by her, but otherwise, I'm with Mukasey.

She also explained in a follow-up letter and a comment her 9-year CIA/DIA job in “anti-terrorism” in both Iraq and Libya. From this she knew of “something very special” about her assignment the CIA wants kept quiet. But she was "strong enough to stand up to them,” and that was just why “they had to hit me so hard." The “unfit for trial” decision, she surmises, was both a government ploy to stop their own weak case going ahead and of course a "hit" to smear her reputation.

Susan Lindauer may in fact know something, and could have been targeted for discrediting by a Bush team bent on making examples of do-gooders. Nonetheless Lindauer and, more importantly, her information, seem quite a bit off. On Lockerbie she’s added nothing of value, and otherwise, to invert an old saying, even if they are out to get you, that doesn’t mean you’re not paranoid.
---
Sources:
[1] New York Times. "Ex-Congress Aide Accused in Spy Case Is Free on Bail." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/nyregion/09spy.html?_r=1
[2] The Lockerbie Case. 13 August 2009. (letter, follow-up, R Black note, Lindauer comment.) http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-susan-lindauer.html

8 comments:

slindauer2008 said...

Susan Lindauer Responds "Part Two."
I find it fascinating that the families of Pan Am 103 understand so little about the case that they DON"T KNOW WHO I AM. Clearly, they have been kept in the dark, or frankly, they would be falling over themselves in horror and apologies that anything so terrible could be done to me. (Throwing me in prison on a Texas military base for one year without a trial or evidentiary hearing. Trying to forcibly drug me so that I stopped telling the truth about our advance 9/11 warning & Iraq's cooperation with the 9/11 investigation.) It was straight out of the Cold War and the Soviet Union. I contributed so much to the outcome-- and this blog is what I get in return? And I'll bet it's run by one of the Pan Am 103 families! Shame on you! Truly it's disgraceful.

slindauer2008 said...

Susan Lindauer Part 3: Another correction, FIVE INDEPENDENT PSYCHIATRISTS reported that they observed NOTHING WRONG WITH ME AT ALL> Even the Bureau of Prison psychiatrist admitted that I suffer "no delusional disorder, based on witness interviews & diagnostic testing." The psychiatrist who testified in Court that I was paranoid & grandiose NEVER interviewed me or spoke to me or laid eyes on me, until he showed up in Court to render his opinion about me. Does that not sound corrupt? Delivering an opinion on somebody's mental status WITHOUT INTERVIEWING THEM?? Sounds corrupt to me. But that was my case. It's horrific to imagine that I lived through it. Thanks to many "awake" blogs, they saw the outrage of it, and fought back for me, while I was locked up, and pulled me out of it. That's the power of the new media. It's a remarkable story. I just wish I was reading it in a book. Anyone is welcome to contact me to get the real story. It should scare the hell out of anyone who cares about the political rights of activists and dissidents in the United States.

slindauer2008 said...

Anyone with questions is welcome to contact me at slindauer2008@yahoo.com. There's a gross amount of disinformation about my life and my history of involvement with Lockerbie & Iraq. It was grossly unfair. While I was locked up in prison without a trial, the White House spin machine went full tilt against me. There's a reason for that. The deceptions on Iraq & 9/11 & anti-terrorism overall are quite profound.

slindauer2008 said...

Attention Editors of this Blog:
I notice that you have not posted any of my 4 comments on the blog, as of this writing. You might still be reviewing them, which is understandable. However, I have forwarded your highly defamatory article to my attorney. My rebuttal comments must be posted, or you could face legal action-- especially because your comments are so ignorant and, regarding my contributions to the Lockerbie negotiations, totally and utterly false. If it turns out that you're part of the Pan Am 103 families, then what have you published qualifies as malicious libel, and I would be entitled to claim millions of dollars in damages. Beware that I could prove everything-- which explains why the U.S. govt could never allow me to go to trial. If you are part of the families, then this sort of malicious disinformation would also reflect an unforgivable depth of ingratitude and selfishness on your part, since so much of my work existed for your benefit. This kind of commentary shames all of you! And I expect this to be posted as "Part 5."

slindauer2008 said...

Thank you for allowing the opportunity to make a rebuttal. There's so much disinformation about Lockerbie and myself, it's no surprise that the Pan Am 103 families are so confused. Everybody in authority has lied to you. It doesn't have to stay that way. My old friend, Dr. Richard Fuisz has tried for years to get permission to talk. He gave a deposition in Alexandria, Virginia (USA), which names 11 individuals who participated in the attack. It's double-sealed, so it can only be opened by a Scottish Judge. I strongly urge the Lockerbie families to mobilize to demand that a single Scottish Judge spend one afternoon examining that document. Everything falls into place, and finally, there could be real action and real justice for all sides. Good luck!

Caustic Logic said...

Ms. Lindauer, welcome. I will say such things at this diagnosis have a certain magic (like megrahi's conviction, a bad call put in the right form can take on a life of its own. Is that what's happening here? Perhaps, or definitely you'd say. Was this article unfair? Perhaps. I'll check your complaints and see if I'll change anything. But I can't be bothered to get the balance perfect, being such an iconoclast with a hundred other people to disagree with.

But your start here is not helping your case.
I find it fascinating that the families of Pan Am 103 understand so little about the case that they DON"T KNOW WHO I AM. Clearly, they have been kept in the dark, or frankly, they would be falling over themselves in horror and apologies that anything so terrible could be done to me.
They certainly are treated like mushrooms (the dark only being half the picture), but there are much better illustrations than that. I don't mean to judge and after all each of us is the center of their own "universe." But it's not all about you.

The editor BTW is me, Adam Larson aka Caustic Logic. No American families has shown an interest in MY site (nor you until now, BTW). Jim Swire has been in touch however.

As for the delay approving, I almost left town entirely until tomorrow, but car problems gave me the chance to catch them today. I love comments. Delay in response is from a busy day anyway and a lot to respond to.

- Adam

Caustic Logic said...

First, readers, part one of this chain is at a different post:
Refusing Fuisz
Second, Ms. Lindauer, I hope you've gotten that this site is not a pro-government stry one. If so it'd be empty. They all say the judges decided and now we'd rather not think about any of the details again, only get mad at Megrahi once a month for refusing to die.

"Delivering an opinion on somebody's mental status WITHOUT INTERVIEWING THEM?? Sounds corrupt to me."
Depends on other specifics, like seeing video of you plus hearing other informed opinions. You could be right about this, but, sorry, you aren't convincing me. "Not fit" might be a cop out regarding the trial, but you do seem paranoid and grandiose.

Do you have psychic powers, special destiny, or any angelic connection or what not beyond what most people have (or are aware of)? It's been said that you claim or have claimed that.

The main thing for me is how you connect to the Lockerbie case. I'm seeing a lot of talk about how central you were, but only from you. Silence part of the smear? Sure, who knows. But all I've seen is you saying Abi Nidal was involved, Megrahi is innocent, you know some ething 'special" and the CIA is trying to shut you up. I agree Megrahi is inncoent, based on things I know from elsewhere. Otherwise...

If it turns out that you're part of the Pan Am 103 families, then what have you published qualifies as malicious libel, and I would be entitled to claim millions of dollars in damages.
Hmmm. But I'm not, so does that mean I'm not libeling you or just that I don't have "millions" to get? What's the untrue part again?

That (if) Fuisz did name 11 people already changes my take on Fuisz. I would support someone looking at those documents and hopefully giving them a fair consideration rather than a political one. Can you remember any of the 11 names? Was an Abu Elias on the list? Now I want to see this thing too.

But, we're doing fine getting at much of the truth with or without his or your help, actually. If you can share something, great, otherwise relax. You aren't actually needed.

Peace.

Caustic Logic said...

Susan, I'd rather just hash this out in the open and at the source than go to e-mails. If you come back... I acknowledge I'm not deeply studied on the details of your case and job history. and I'm relying on a surface level analysis - just two sources cited, NYT and you.

It seems you've gotten a wrong view of what my site here is about. Lest you think it's a problem just on your end, let me assure you lots of people misread me. I'm weird that way.

I picked on you because you fit a larger pattern I'm tracing out of people who make dubious claims re: PA103. Juval Aviv also claims a vast smear conspiracy. And he's a complete scoundrel. Ultimately, the rampant wrongness of the questions thus raised just strengthens the official story's perceived validity. Puts me in a two front war.

The title "Susan of Grandeur" I know is provocative, and I was hoping to ask your blessing to keep it in good humor. I've got a pretty big head myself, challenging big lies without even 10% the real accomplishments you've made. But considering how your comments start here, I'm inclined to take that as your unintended blessing.

Nonetheless, can I have your blessing?