US-based Iraqi spy announced 9/11 three months before it happened

This was Lindauer’s first real opportunity to argue her competence to stand trial and deny the delusions claimed by court psychiatrists. Lindauer asserts that she had been a U.S. intelligence asset since working on the Lockerbie case and subsequent antiterrorism efforts.

Appearing for the defense, Dr. Godfrey testified under oath that Lindauer told him of her specific concerns about an attack on the United States. She told him that a “massive” attack would occur in the southern part of Manhattan, involving airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon. The witness said that she mentioned this in the year 2000, which coincided with the Lockerbie trial. And then in 2001, Lindauer also mentioned the anticipated attack in the spring, 2001 and then August 2001. Godfrey said, at that time, Lindauer thought an attack was “imminent” and that it would complete what was started in the 1993 bombing (the original World Trade Center bombing).

After the hearing, Lindauer elaborated that this extreme threat scenario was done in concert with the man she says was one of her CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, who has been associated with U.S. intelligence.

Federal prosecutor Edward O’Callaghan tried to diminish the prediction by asking Godfrey if Lindauer presented this a “prophesy”. Godfrey denied hearing that word mentioned in their conversations. He stated that Lindauer used the term “premonition.” The prosecution did not challenge Godfrey’s testimony that Lindauer made the predictions in the time period given by the witness. After the hearing, Lindauer said that she’d called the Department of Justice Office of Counterterrorism in August of 2001 reporting her fears about an attack.

The courtroom where the revelation was made is about a 15 minute walk from the site of the September 11, 2001 attack where the former World Trade Center towers once stood.

After initially evaluating Lindauer, court appointed psychiatrists in New York argued that her clams of innocence and her willingness to produce witnesses to verify those claims were signs of delusional thinking. However, a Maryland based psychiatrist and two psychotherapists with whom Lindauer visited on a regular basis failed to support the notion of delusions or a debilitating mental illness. Lindauer has told federal authorities continuously that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and she offered to prove that in open court.

Prosecutors typically disparage appeals by defendants to delay or avoid trial based on psychological stress or suffering. This case is an exception. The United States Government is the party delaying the trial based on their claims of Lindauer’s inability to assist in her own defense.

Today’s testimony was limited to what is known as “lay” witnesses. Lindauer’s expert witness, a distinguished psychiatrist and academic, will testify at a July 7, 2008 hearing that she’s competent to stand trial.

Lindauer triggered today’s hearing by refusing to attend court mandated counseling, a court requirement during her periods of release from 11 months of federal detention. In a recent interview in “Scoop,” Lindauer said: “Since August, 2007, I have refused to go back [to court mandated counseling]. I told the Court the game is over. Go to trial or drop the charges, which are ridiculous anyway. They don’t have a case, and they know it.”

Dr. Godfrey’s testimony contained some other elements of note. Lindauer’s defense attorney, Brian Shaughnessy of Washington, DC, asked about Lindauer’s personality and behavior. He said that she was “mercurial,” subject to periods of joy and sadness in response to the events that she experienced. He also testified that he’d never seen her as having any mental impediments.

Kelly O’Meara was also called to the stand in Lindauer’s behalf. O’Meara served as a senior congressional staffer for over two decades. She did investigative work for members of Congress on the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 TWA Flight 800 crash on Long Island Sound in 1996. She’s a former investigative reporter for Insight Magazine and the Washington Times and author of Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill, a recent book on the dangers of psychiatric medication.

When examined by the prosecution, O’Meara said that she had no reason to believe that Lindauer had a mental disorder. Prosecutor O’Callaghan then asked if she believed that she was qualified to make that judgment. O’Meara responded affirmatively saying that she could read the official diagnostic manual for mental disorders like anybody else and compare behavior with the list of symptoms provided.

Under questioning by defense attorney Shaughnessy, the witness described an after-work group that met every Thursday over a number of years at Capitol Hill’s Hunan Restaurant. This group included Lindauer, ‘O’Meara, and lobbyists and staffers who enjoyed talking politics and having a refreshment at the end of the day. O’Meara focused on her long term close friendship with Paul Hoven, who is described by Lindauer as an intelligence operative and one of her handlers.

The O’Meara-Hoven relationship included regular meetings over several years and frequent phone calls. O’Meara mentioned that Hoven enjoyed going to dinner at her sister’s home and that she had accompanied Hoven to a shooting visit at the country home of a legendary intelligence figure.

O’Meara was asked if Hoven indicated any relationship with Lindauer. She responded that “I heard about Susan all the time from Paul.” She also described him speaking with her frequently at the Thursday night group at the Capitol Hill restaurant.

O’Meara said that after Lindauer was sent to Carswell federal prison facility, O’Meara got a “strange call” form Hoven during which he said, “Susan’s crazy.” O’Meara said that she’d never heard Hoven make those remarks before Lindauer was sent to the federal prison facility.

Lindauer’s relationship with Hoven is a key part of her defense, with the Thursday night group as one of their frequent points of contact.

On cross examination, prosecutor O’Callaghan asked O’Meara if she would be surprised if Hoven had reported only a very few meetings with her throughout his entire life.

Defense counsel Shaughnessy produced two witnesses, one a computer science professor and the other a reporter and congressional staffer. Together they provided the framework for Lindauer’s claim that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and “lay” testimony that she did not impress either witness as having any type of mental or emotional problem.

After the hearing was over, Lindauer spoke to the press. She said, “I’ve been left out to dry” by those in the government who employed her services as an intelligence asset. She described efforts that she made to develop a major contact in Iraq to help with U.S. antiterrorism efforts.

Lindauer’s next competency hearing is scheduled for July 7, 2008 before Judge Preska.

Susan P. Lindauer aka Symbol Susan (born 17 July 1963) is an American journalist accused of conspiring to act as a spy for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions involving the government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

The prosecution claims that she accepted $10,000 for the work. The exact charge was that she acted as an unregistered agent of Iraq, something akin to an unregistered lobbyist, as well as conspiring to commit espionage. Although news headlines frequently refer to her as “accused spy”, more precise journalists note that the actual charges carefully avoid accusing Lindauer of espionage.

Lindauer faces up to 10 years in prison on the most serious charge and five years on the lesser charge if she is convicted. Her case is currently active. At the time of this writing, after a very long period with almost no news coverage, her case may be going to court if it is determined that she is competent to stand trial. On June 17, Lindauer had her first pre-trial hearing, where she called two witnesses to testify to her competence to stand trial. This competency hearing was scheduled to continue on July 7, 2008.

Not to defend her but if she was working for Iraq, she could have known:

In in 1998, an Arab intelligence officer, who knows Saddam personally, predicted in Newsweek: "Very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis." The Arab official said these terror operations would be run under "false flags" --spook-speak for front groups--including bin Laden's organization.

Then there were the predictions by an Iraqi with ties to Iraqi intelligence, Naeem Abd Mulhalhal, in Qusay's own newspaper several weeks before the attacks that stated bin Laden would “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House and ”bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” (referencing a second IRAQI sponsored attack on the World Trade Center). Another reference to New York was “[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra everytime he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) which identified New York, New York as a target. Mulhalhal also stated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." which references an airplane attack.

The Arabic language daily newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabic also cited the cooperation between Iraq, bin Laden and Al December 1998 editorial, which predicted that “President Saddam Hussein, whose country was subjected to a four day air strike, will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama Bin-Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world.” This info is in the link provided below. How could these people have had foreknowledge without Iraq being involved?

Lawsuit Against Iraq for 9/11

Sure, good arguments.

See here, a former UNSCOM inspector, and IRAQ SURVEY GROUP member saying Iraq was behind the anthrax letters.

To start, I have believed all along that Iraqi intelligence had their dirty hands on this event. Based on ISG findings that Iraq had apparently decided in 1994 to not attempt production, but rather only research to enhance “break-out” capability and that the Iraqi and Syrian intelligence services had formed an alliance to develop the field “in chemical and biological of mutual interest,” I now suspect that Syria made the anthrax product with Iraqi Intelligence assistance. The cooperation included Iraqi scientists assisting the Syrians.

Much of what these authors say, I can verify. Iraq had air-freighted into Baghdad two Niro spray dryers that were of the type that would yield “plus or minus any particle size” the producer desired. One of these was located at Al Hakam and was destroyed under UN supervision in May/June 1996. The other one we were unable to locate (and, of course, Iraq did not know its whereabouts) until spring 1998. Within two weeks I had a sampling team in Iraq to thoroughly sample the 2nd dryer. Unfortunately, Iraq suddenly had an urgent need for the dryer and had thoroughly disassembled it, cleaned and sterilized it and then reassembled it. We were not able to get permission to destroy it but we kept tabs on it. However, UNMOVIC never checked for it and I believe the US did not after the war. It very well could have been moved to Syria.

Iraq did import 200 metric tonnes of aerosil from Germany in 1988. The silica was for the CW/BW weapons group. We, UNSCOM, believed the silica was intended for making dusty chemical agents, but it could also have been used for BW weapons. We know that Iraq had all the aerobiology technology necessary. It appears that the UN FAO also obtained 25 metric tonnes for Iraq “drug industry” in 2002 (of course this was after the anthrax letters). This also was not checked by UNMOVIC.

There is evidence that the Pasteur Institute in Paris had the Ames strain. We know that Iraq obtained from the Pasteur Institute several strains of anthrax but we were only able to confirm the identity of one strain (Pasteur A15, I believe. I could check it.) Thus one of the other strains might have been the Ames strain; in addition to the two possible sources cited by the authors.

Thus, the authors seem to have done a rather thorough analysis that the FBI should have done. There are some minor flaws in their data but I have not checked against their sources. There is no doubt that the material in the Daschle and Leahy letters as well as the AMI building contained a hydrophilic silica. The polyglass binder came from the FBI itself. I have learned of the addition of the weak like-charge from several sources including some on the inside of the investigations. The pharmaceutical industry is interested in this because, as the authors state it also increases retention of the small particles in the lung. Normally this retention is around 40%, but the like-charge increases this approaching 100%. I suspect this was the interest of whoever did this.

I hope this helps. If you desire more comments, let me know. . . .

Richard Spertzel
April 7, 2007

http://www.lauriemylroie.com/files/Spertzel_on_Shoham_Jacobsen2.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.