CIA Whistleblower Susan Lindauer Exposes Everything!

What you are allowed to think and what you do think are two different things, aren't they? That's another way of saying that this forum may be NSFW, if your boss is a Republican. A liberal won't fire you for it, but they'll laugh at you in the break room and you may not get promoted. Unless you're an engineer, of course, in which your obsession with facing reality is not actually a career-disabling disability.

CIA Whistleblower Susan Lindauer Exposes Everything!

Postby admin » Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:50 am

CIA WHISTLEBLOWER SUSAN LINDAUER EXPOSES EVERYTHING! "EXTREME PREJUDICE"
by Susan Lindauer
Video from Portland, Oregon
August, 2011

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.




I am not making this up ...

And I got up out of bed, and I looked out the window, and there are men in flak jackets on my porch ... and I was just like, "What are you talking about? I'm making coffee ...

But I will tell you upfront that I believe there was both the hijackings -- and that does not mean that I'm right and you're wrong -- I believe there were both hijackings and a controlled demolition scenario ...

And it's also very important for you to know that as the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 comes up, I mean no offense, but you guys have no idea what actually happened. The lies are so much bigger than what you know. And it's so much deeper. And it's so much more tragic once you have the truth....

So, on that note ...

And contrary to everything you were told, the Iraqis were not resistant to weapons inspections....

This is very important for you to understand. So this is like the background of what you have to know....

There was something else going on that summer that was very beautiful. This peace framework that we had been working on was magnificent. It was turning out just glorious for a peace dividend. The Iraqis were now offering the weapons inspections, which, of course, the United States had very vigorous standards for the weapons inspections. Iraq was offering cooperation with anti-terrorism, to allow the FBI to go in. And Iraq started to offer a lot more. A lot more came on the table. By June and July of 2001, Iraq was offering the United States preferential contracts -- now think about the economy today -- preferential contracts for the United States corporations on telecommunications, healthcare, hospital equipment, pharmaceuticals, and transportation. Iraq offered to buy 1 million American-manufactured automobiles every year for 10 years. Think of what that would have done for the economy. Think about non-dual use factory production. Because the CIA was like, "If we are going to give up these darn sanctions, we're going to take a pound of flesh with it." They had no -- and whether you like the CIA or not, and most of you, 99% of you don't like the CIA. I realize that. Of course! But the CIA was doing what it was supposed to do. Whether you like it or not, they were taking care of what is in the best interests of the United States Government, with the best interests of the United States economy....

You see, you guys couldn't get this number, but I have it. I have the number inside the Attorney General's office. I'm not calling a switchboard, I'm calling his private staff. Okay? ...

What I have learned since then -- now, all the things I have told you are things that I did directly. So I'm not relating what somebody else did, or a conversation that somebody else had that has been reported to me. This is direct, primary knowledge from my own experience. But what I'm going to tell you now is from somebody else. Okay? And so I distinguish these two things. I have been told by somebody who saw the videos, that at the World Trade Center, from approximately ... August 23rd until approximately September 3rd ... my friend says that at approximately 3:00 in the morning ... a couple of vans arrived at 3:00 in the morning, after the janitorial trucks had left the building. And it's very important, because they were able to identify the vans according to make, model, color, and there were no markings on the vans. But the janitorial vans did have markings. And so they were able to distinguish these are not the same vans. And they know how the janitorial trucks left the building. They actually tracked the paths that the janitorial trucks took to drive home. Like the janitorial workers were driving down certain roads to get over to their houses. And the CIA, or the FBI, or the NSA folks, tracked those people home. And he was quite convinced that these are not the same trucks. And from the hours of 3:00 and 5:00, these trucks had never been in this building before. It was an anomaly, definitely. It wasn't like it was going on for months and months and it just continued. They showed up for 10 days, 10 or 11 days approximately, then they were never seen again. And that's when they believe they wired the building.

And my friend told me, absolutely, it was a thermite bomb with potential sulfur in it. The important thing about a thermite bomb is it is an extraordinary heat producing bomb. Okay? It takes steel and it creates molten steel. So it takes beams of steel and it turns it into molten steel. And it just rots, everything underneath just sinks into the ground, like what you saw. And it is a special U.S. military grade weapon. Okay? It is a military grade weapon. It's not something you could make -- ever! -- in your kitchen, or your garage, or your living room. It is impossible for you to do this. This is a U.S. military weapon.

And so I do believe that that helps to explain some of the missing pieces. And I believe this is what happened: They had known about the terrorist attack for months. There is a long-term advance knowledge. Assets are being watched. The so-called "terrorists", whether they are real -- Mohamed Atta was an asset, trained by the United States government, supervised by the United States government, and I can assure you that assets -- and I'm speaking directly from my own personal experience -- assets are heavily controlled individuals....

And so it's more likely that they were using Mohamed Atta to GUIDE the conspiracy, to track the conspiracy. And then they discovered they were bozo pilots, they were clowns, they weren't any good at this flying stuff. And now they had an agenda. And the agenda was that when this attack happened, they were going to go to war with Iraq....

So it's not like they just spontaneously wired the World Trade Center. They knew it was coming. And they wanted to make sure they had maximum damage when it hit. They knew they were going to use the airplanes as the cover to demolish the building....

I was what is called an "asset." I was an intelligence asset. I was supervised by handlers for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency....They knew that I was a passionate, anti-sanctions activist, and passionately anti-war. I hated the first Gulf War. I protested the Gulf War....

[I]t's really questionable that there was a jihadi plot. I do believe there were hijackers. Now, I have to tell you that I do believe there were hijackers. On the other hand, I know that the people they did identify were assets. Okay? They worked for the United States government. And the men who were identified as the hijackers were not jihadis. They were not devoutly religious men. They went to strip clubs. They drank alcohol. They smoked cigarettes. They chased women. Real, deep, authentic jihadis would do none of that. And so it's really curious to me as to what their -- and I don't have an answer for you, unfortunately -- but what their final minutes must have been on this earth. What did they think they were doing? I truly do not know. I don't know if they just thought it was a training exercise. I don't know if they thought -- I just don't know.

Q. One other point. You say that there was a point in midsummer 2001, when the CIA and elements in the U.S. government may have become concerned that having planned this event, cared for it, that the alleged jihadi pilots weren't going to be able to accomplish the goal. Well now, according to the official version of 9/11, they did accomplish the goal of flying the airplanes into the buildings. And so, do you think that the CIA made a mistake, and underestimated the talent of these pilots?

A. Well, here's the thing. They did fly into the building. Of course they did. And they could have been on automatic pilot -- that makes sense. We know that there was a heightened GPS, and a heightened cell phone activity that is very unusual. Usually, the GPS only works to, it doesn't work to certain altitudes. And at a scale of like 1-10, the GPS signal was working at a 10, whereas ordinarily it might work at a 4. See? And so something was helping boost. And it had to be boosted. It couldn't have just spontaneously done this on its own. Something had to be boosting the GPS signal. And it's just a matter of scientific requirement that it had to be boosted. And it was!

The cell phone was the same thing. You know, some people have tried to say that the cell phone conversations did not happen. I do believe they did happen. I do believe that people got through to their spouses. But again, you see, there had to be some technological boost for it to be done. And I think the hijackers got a lot of help. They got a lot of help....

Q. So what I'd like to get from you in part is, first of all, your picture of the big, overall. What's the primary motive? You said before, but who? I mean, what is the big picture? Who are the big honchos at the top that are directing it?

A. Well, I'd like to answer this on a couple of levels. First of all, the CIA has a long track record of false flag operations on itself. And one of the reasons that I may be more trustworthy, is that I was an asset, not a CIA director.... But the other thing is that I was -- the reason you should trust me is because I paid for this. [Laughs] I was locked up in prison on a military base for a year, and I was held under indictment for five years. And if you do a little research on my story, you'll find the government was so threatened by what I was going to say, that they actually argued to -- and this is in the record; there's a history of this; you can confirm this -- they wanted to forcibly drug me with Haldol, Ativan and Prozac, which would have chemically lobotomized me. Because they admitted that I was not hallucinating. I do not suffer depression -- uh, for those of you who do suffer depression, sorry, but I don't. I don't have mood disturbances ...

They implied very strongly that I was a religious maniac. And I do believe in God, and I have a spiritual life. Yes, I do. But I'm not a religious maniac. I guess a religious maniac would be someone like Elizabeth Smart, rapist-kidnapper who went into court and was like spouting religious stuff, and was standing up and singing hymns in court. Stuff like that....

[A]s an asset, this is probably going to frustrate you, because I'm trained to stop where I -- it's very much compartmentalized. And there are certain things that I know from my own direct, personal experience that I can tell you. And then there are other things which I am taught to draw a line. And it may drive you crazy, but there are some things that I cannot answer, because I don't know. And as an asset, I'm told to stop, and to always distinguish what I actually know from what I don't know. And that's one of the things I don't know. Sorry. But I do believe there were hijackings.

Q. How do you hold on to the story that there were hijackings?

A. But we don't necessarily know who the hijackers were....

Q. And then there was that plane that went down in Pennsylvania with no plane parts.

A. That was shot down.

Q. There were no plane parts anywhere.

A. There was a plane that was shot down, and I know that there was a pilot who shot down one of the airplanes, and he is locked up in prison in Florida right now.

Q. Who is he?

A. I don't know. I could get it for you. I will get it for you. I'm sorry, I have been told his name before, and I'm actually doing a radio interview with Michael Hertzog tomorrow, who is the one who told me about the guy. And I will get that information, and I will pass it to our friend over here. And we'll get that to you. Because he needs help. The last I heard, it could be, I hope he's been released. And he may have been released by now. But the last I heard he was still in prison. And if he is still in prison, it would be awfully nice if you guys could help him....

Q. I just want to say that anyone can claim, any pilot can claim to have shot down the airliner. It's easy to claim something like that. But did it happen? And I just want to point out that not only was there no plane debris at the alleged crash site, but neither was there a debris-field anywhere else. We know from incidents like Lockerbie that when a plane blows up over land, it leaves a debris field.

A. Well, it's also the Pentagon. I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by an airplane. I mean, all that debris was suddenly, just magically removed? [Laughs] There was no airplane there, either. So there's still a lot of questions about 9/11 that I cannot answer for you ... But hopefully I'm going to give you enough new information that you'll be able to put some more pieces of it together....

Well, I will tell you that the 9/11 conspiracy is based on something called "Project Bojinka." Are all of you familiar with "Project Bojinka"? Bojinka was designed by Ramzi Yousef, who was the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center attack. And in his grand scheme, 11 airplanes would be hijacked, and would strike different targets all over the United States. The World Trade Center would be one. And then they would hit the White House. They'd hit the Justice Department. They'd also hit like Chicago. They'd hit Los Angeles. And throughout the whole country there'd be strikes. And the military discovered this when they found, or the CIA discovered this, when they arrested Ramzi Yousef in the Philippines in 1995, and they found the blueprint for this 9/11, what became the 9/11 attack, on his computer....

I was accused of acting as an unregistered Iraqi agent, because I had delivered a letter to my cousin, who is the Chief of Staff to George Bush, telling him that the war in Iraq would be catastrophic, and outlining several of the consequences like: democracy ...

Q. I just wanted to know how you knew Mohamed Atta was a CIA asset?

A. That's been very well established. They've admitted that he was a CIA asset.

Q. Could you send me a reference or something so I can verify that?

A. Um, I will find a reference for you and give it to these guys. And, yeah, sure. I'll get you some references on that. But it has been verified that he was. And he received some military training, too....

[B]ut the facts are the [Libyan] rebels are Islamic radicals. They do want to institute sharia. And at least be honest and say it. Because that's what you are going to get. And don't pretend you're somewhere else. Don't pretend these are people who are doing something different than what you say. That is what their goal is. And they don't want democracy....

When I was locked up in Carswell, I cried every day. Not when I first went in. When I first went in, I was told it was going to be four months, and then I'd be released. And the first four months I was okay. Because I was like, "I'm going to get out of this. And boy am I going to have a story to tell. And they're not going to shut me up." But when they refused to release me, and I realized I was not going home, and at that point they dropped the bomb on me that they were trying to hold me indefinitely, and only when I thought I was going to be held indefinitely -- and then that continued for another eight months -- I became absolutely terrified out of my mind. And I began to have very serious post-traumatic stress.

Q. Well, you said you hadn't gone through depression before, and I was just wondering how --

A. I went through deep anxiety. And it was like my blood pressure, the stress level, it was like a war. A constant war. I was so frightened. I actually [clearing her throat] color my hair, okay? My hair actually went white....

[A]nd all the political prisoners, all the women political prisoners are being held in Carswell. So if any of you guys are ever arrested on the Patriot Act, you'll be seeing the inside of Carswell, too....

And believe it or not, there's an affidavit from him in the back of my book....

An asset is like an operative. It's like a field operative. A human asset is the eyes and ears that goes into the situation, "into the room," and has direct contact with events. So that's why assets are trained, we are trained to be very observant of the full situation, and to be very descriptive of what we are doing. And we're trained not to change what we've seen for any reason. And that was a real threat to the Bush administration, because you don't ever change your story. Because the detail that you think is small, that you think you might compromise, could turn out to be very important, because you are compartmentalized. And you're like seeing a picture of this, and they need to know what this is. They need to see what you see right here. Even if you don't know what's over there, or what's over there. They have to know that this here that you're reporting, is as accurate and precise as possible....

Q. So after that, what happened until now?

A. So, we did have the hearing in June of 2008, right before the presidential election in November. And people like Michael Hertzog, at Oracle Broadcasting, and public broadcasting, the Internet radio was giving me a lot of attention. And they were helping to defend me....

Q. Did you hear anything from anybody about the book?

A. Oh! When I do radio interviews, there are funny things that happen. Like my phone will cut out. Like I make sure I have my batteries charged, and all this stuff, and the phone will just drop dead. Drop out. And the battery will just disappear. Or, if they can't kill the phone calls, sometimes there will be like a loud beeping noise: "BEEP! BEEP! BEEP!" And all the way through like an hour interview without stop. It'll just continue all the way through.

Q. Has anyone directly come up and threatened your publisher?

A. Well, I have had to self-publish it. Because the corporate press, they're like "No one wants to hear about 9/11. No one wants to hear this." And then we were afraid, we did have some smaller publishers who were willing to take it, but we were very much afraid at that point that a smaller publisher would be threatened, and then they would close the book. And they'd stop it. And so I decided that the safest way to go forward would be to self-publish it.

-- CIA Whistleblower Susan Lindauer Exposes Everything! "Extreme Prejudice", by Susan Lindauer


[Transcribed from the movie by Tara Carreon]

Image

[Man] I want to welcome everybody to this evening's event, which has been brought to you by the 9/11 Truth Alliance, who got word that Susan was coming to town, and needed a place. So we arranged "The Lucky Lab" as a suitable venue for her kind of talk and book selling/signing event. And I just want to spend a few moments and just talk about the 9/11 Truth Alliance, and what we've been up to, and what's coming up. And I'll briefly introduce Susan, and get this talk underway. Now I assume that we'll talk for a little while, and then there will be some discussion?

[Susan] Oh, lots of questions. Anything you want to ask.

[Man] Alright. And I'm glad you said that, because I think that's a real hallmark of the 9/11 Truth Alliance. The thing that's really special about the 9/11 Truth Alliance is that it insists on free thinking and free speech, and critical thinking. And it really reacts quickly to gatekeepers. And when these phrases come up, you know, and a lot of people don't know what they mean offhand, but once you've studied the events of 9/11 2001 -- it's been almost ten years now -- one realizes that, you know, there are all of these cliches that you can throw up, like "We're in the matrix!" or "It's 1984." It's all sorts of highly controlled spectacles are being thrown at the public in a very coordinated and nefarious manner, in a way to get the populations of the world to be docile and not think, and be afraid, and do what they are told, and not speak out.

And the 9/11 Truth Alliance is one of the few groups that refuses to stop speaking out, and to stop thinking. And so by coming here tonight, you are part of this tradition of enlightenment, and resistance, and truth seeking. That's kind of been the hallmark of a lot of the higher cultures of this planet, and it's a real disappointment that we seem to be entering this period in which truth and enlightenment are far from being cherished, and stamped out with the likes of Guantanamo, and any other torture chamber you care to name.

So, anyway, if you want to talk about these things, you can come to the 9/11 Truth Alliance Meetup meeting every Saturday morning at 11:00, at the True Brew Coffee House, which is on Southeast Milwaukee just south of Powell Boulevard, on the east side of the street -- I don't remember the exact address. It's right there. We meet at 11:00 until, I don't know, for as long as people want to talk really. And then we also aim to put together some other events and things.

Coming up, of course, is the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11: Ten years of war and torture, and ripping up the Constitution, and crashing the economy.

And here we are. And we're about to be treated to a media bloodbath in which they're going to rev it all up again, and maybe this time for Iran. And we'll be doing our counter-events. It looks like we will have Jim Fetzer, who has talked about 9/11 also for a real long time. And he'll be speaking on Friday the 9th. And I believe it's going to be at the Sellwood Mills, or the Sellwood Community Center, down in Southeast Portland this September. And then on Saturday, in the same building, we hope to have kind of an all day seminar for beginners, and then for more advanced people, on the ins and outs of 9/11. I mean, there have been all these fabulous documentaries done about 9/11. All kinds of documentaries done. I mean, there is information out the wazoo about it. Books, etcetera, etcetera.

But it all doesn't appear to pierce the hardcore media grip on reality. But we're going to talk about it anyway. And it's down in the Sellwood Community Center. And we're here in the Lucky Lab, because the 9/11 Truth Alliance has experienced the backlash of truth-telling in this town.

We've had various different events, and we've been chased out of venues! Time and time again! Chased out of venues, one after the other. And, you know, this is the reality of where we are right now.

I mean, liberal friends, who we thought were liberal friends, turned out to just be liberals. And they appear to be just as more in favor of Obama, and bombing Libya, and attacking Yemen, and shredding the Constitution, and instituting rendition here in the United States. And I guess employing Guantanamo tactics, that Pelican Bay and other supermax prisons now in the United States -- where there's a hunger strike, which you also wouldn't know about unless you like kept your ear extremely close to the ground. I mean, Pelican Bay, our very own Guantanamo, is actually just over the border in California from Oregon. So it's not even just a few hundred miles from here. And they are torturing people right now, right there.

So anyway, it's a dark time, but I'm really happy that we are still able to practice our free speech rights -- for now -- and have a speaker like Susan Lindauer, who has had her own story to tell of being in the fold of the national security state, and then kind of being kicked into the hole for not going along with it. And I'm really excited to hear her talk about it. I've heard of a few of the prices she's had to pay with her family, and others. So it's like, whenever you really start telling the truth -- you know I hate to be so doom and gloom -- but you've got to be prepared for the consequences.

[Susan] There are some serious consequences.

[Man] And at the same time, keep in mind that it's not all about now. It's never always been about now. We're dealing with the future now, and we're fighting for the future.

And you know, that's where we're at. So, here we go.

[Audience] [Clapping]

Image

[Susan] Thank you. Thank you. Well, I have to say, I am so pleased to be here.

Image

I have waited 10 years, 10 years to tell this story! I remember after 9/11 when my CIA handler, Richard Fuisz, told me that "there really wasn't going to be much of a 9/11 investigation." And, "We were going to try to keep the people calm." That's what he said. "We're going to keep them calm." And I said, "What do you mean?" And he said, "Well, we don't really need them to know everything that we were doing before 9/11." And I said, "Well, why? What do you think is going to happen when they find out that you didn't tell them the truth? Why don't you just tell them the truth right now?" And he said, "Well, that's not really what they want to do."

And I had different ideas. I will tell you straight off the bat that right after 9/11, my CIA handler received a $13 million dollar payoff from the 9/11 investigation, that was supposed to be money used to secure Iraq's cooperation. And I ended up getting indicted under the Patriot Act. I was the second non-Arab American ever indicted under the Patriot Act, after Jose Padilla. And my crime was in opposing terrorism, and going to Congress. And I had spoken to the staff of Senator John McCain, and Senator Trent Lott. And I pounded them. I called their chiefs of staff, their legislative directors, and their foreign policy people. And I said, "I'm an asset who covered Iraq and Libya at the United Nations. And I have a story to tell. And you need to hear what I have to say." And within 30 days -- I am not making this up -- thanks to the Patriot Act, all of my phone calls to these offices are taped by the FBI, so I can actually prove that they occurred, and I have the dates, I have the actual phone conversations on tape -- and within 30 days of those conversations, I woke up to hear the FBI pounding at my door. And I got up out of bed, and I looked out the window, and there are men in flak jackets on my porch. And I opened the door, and they came into my house. And the FBI agent is shaking. He's shaking. And he said, "You are Susan Lindauer. You are hereby notified you are under arrest under the Patriot Act. You have the right to remain silent. And anything you say, etcetera, etcetera." He read me my Miranda rights ...

Image

and I was just like, "What are you talking about? I'm making coffee. You know, I'm not a bank robber, I'm not a drug dealer, I'm not a murderer. I haven't broken any laws that I can think of. And I have no idea what you say that I've done." He says, "Well, your attorney will explain it to you later on."

Okay. That began a five-year indictment, five-year nightmare under the Patriot Act. I was never taken to trial. In five years, I was allowed one morning of testimony with two witnesses. The two witnesses were a former chief of staff for a congressional member of Congress, and my old friend Park Godfrey, who verified the 9/11 warnings that I'm going to talk about tonight. And I'm going to tell you, and then I'm going to let you guys ask a lot of questions. And I know you're going to have a lot of questions. I'm going to do my best to answer as honestly as I can. I do not have all the answers.

Image

But I will tell you upfront that I believe there was both the hijackings -- and that does not mean that I'm right and you're wrong -- I believe there were both hijackings and a controlled demolition scenario. And I'll explain to you how the whole thing fits together. And you may disagree. And that's okay if you disagree with me. But when you hear what I have to say, you'll understand why I've reached this conclusion. So I believe both of them happened. Okay?

And it's also very important for you to know that as the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 comes up, I mean no offense, but you guys have no idea what actually happened. The lies are so much bigger than what you know. And it's so much deeper. And it's so much more tragic once you have the truth.

So, on that note, let me just take you to -- I'm actually going to start, I'm going to move you a little bit ahead to -- remember when George Bush and they were counting the votes in Florida? Okay. I'm going to take you back to November of 2000. They had not yet declared that George Bush had won the election.

Image

I was having meetings, with the full knowledge and permission of the CIA, with Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, on resuming the weapons inspections. It is very important for you to understand that this story with 9/11 also ties in deeply to what happened with Iraq. And contrary to everything you were told, the Iraqis were not resistant to weapons inspections. They had a comprehensive agenda. The CIA already had a comprehensive agenda for resolving the entire conflict without war at all. And it involved weapons inspections, cooperation with anti-terrorism, and major financial contracts for U.S. corporations. And oil. And this would be developed over a period of time. But we already had, by November 2000, we already had an agreement with the Iraqi government. We had a framework agreement that at that point was undefined, or not so well-defined. And we had to make it defined. But they had already consented to all of these things. They wanted peace with us. And so by February of 2001, the Iraqis had agreed to offer to invite the FBI to send a task force into Baghdad, with authorization to conduct terrorism investigations and to make arrests of terror suspects. This is very important for you to understand. So this is like the background of what you have to know.

Okay. In April of 2001, I was summoned -- oh, this is already happening: the comprehensive peace framework, those discussions are already underway, and I am at this point the chief asset covering the Iraqi embassy and the Libya House. I do both of them. And Yemen, and Syria, and Egypt, and Malaysia. But Iraq and Libya are my primary countries.

Image

And so I'm a back channel. Which means that the U.S. Government gives me messages to give the Iraqis, and then the Iraqis give me messages to give to Washington. So I know everything. Every single conversation is going through me. And I can tell you that in April of 2001, I was summoned to my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, and he said he had a message for me to deliver to New York at the earliest possible convenience. And the message was this: "We are looking for information on a conspiracy to highjack airplanes. We expect the target to be the World Trade Center. We think they're going to fly the airplanes into the World Trade Center. And we want the Iraqis to provide any 'actionable intelligence.'" "Actionable intelligence" is a name, an airport hub, a flight number, something that's going to help us identify who they are, where they are meeting, what their nationalities are, anything like this. And he says, he gives me a message and he says, "We want this information. And we want you to tell the Iraqis that if they fail to give us this information, and if it is later determined that they knew the information and they did not give it to us, then the United States is prepared to go to war with Iraq."

Okay, this is April of 2001.

Image

Well, I went up to New York, and we were in the middle of these great negotiations. From February of 2001, we have an invitation for the FBI to come to Baghdad. So I go up to New York, and I'm very pleasant. I'm very polite. There's no reason to be nasty with these people: they want peace! I say, "Hey, could you please send a message to Baghdad. We'd like this information. If you come across anything." Saddam had been one of our best sources on terrorism throughout the 1990s.

Image

Iraq hated terrorism, because they believed that -- they hated Islamic jihadists. I mean, he did! Whether you like Saddam or not, whether you hate Saddam or not, he hated Islamic Conservatives. He was convinced that they would take advantage of the crumbling of authority in Baghdad under the sanctions, and that they would then try to overthrow, overturn his government. And the poverty of the people from the sanctions would fuel this problem, would help overturn his government. So he wanted to help us at every turn to keep these people from becoming too powerful.

Okay. And so we knew this.

So when I go to New York in April of 2001, I'm very friendly. And I say, "Hey, look, could you send the message to Baghdad, let them know we're looking for this? Thanks."

And the message from the Iraqis in April of 2001 is, "Hey, send the FBI. We've already invited you to send the FBI. Come on. Tell 'em, 'just bring them on!' Sure!" Wow! You didn't know that, did you?

Image

Okay. So I go back to Washington, and I get a phone call from Richard. And he says, "Come down; come down to my office. I want to hear what they said." I go down and I say, "Oh, I was real polite. Yeah, yeah, I gave them the message. Sure, sure." He said, "I didn't tell you to be nice. I told you to tell those -- "

Image

this is going to be on television, right?

Image

Okay, I'll soft pedal what he said. He was like, "You stupid, godddamn blankety blankety blankety blankety. I told you to tell those SOB MFers God-G-D blah blah blah" -- SCREAMING!, and circling me around his conference desk. I'll never forget it.

Image

Circling his conference desk, ranting and raving, waving his arms around. He didn't do that very often. He does not have that kind of personality.

Image

He's a very calm man. He feels that if you're really angry at somebody, then the more calm you are, the more dangerous you are. That's CIA! He's old-school CIA.

Okay. So he's screaming now. And he's like, "You go back to New York, and you deliver the message exactly the way that I told you to deliver the message." And I said, "Well, Richard, I don't want them to think I'm threatening them, because I believe in negotiations, and conflict resolution." He said, "No, no, I don't want them to think you are threatening them. And I don't want them to think I am threatening them.

Image

I want you to tell them this threat of war originates at the highest level of government, above the CIA director, and above the Secretary of State." That would be three men: President George Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. And no one else. Those are the three people who are threatening war.

And I want to be really clear about the message that I was ordered to give them: "We demand that you turn over any actionable intelligence, any fragment of intelligence, outlining a conspiracy involving airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center. If you withhold this information, if we discover that you have withheld this information, and the attack occurs, then we will bomb you back to the stone age. You will be bombed harder than you have ever been bombed before. You will be destroyed. You've never been hit the way we're going to hit you now."

Okay. So I went up and I delivered that message. This is May of 2001.

In June and July, practically every single week my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz and I, talked about 9/11. And it was very clear that the intelligence community was being prepped for two things: One, to expect airplane hijackings. Now, I have to be honest with you, because I know a lot of you are interested in the controlled demolition, they prepped us to expect the airplane hijackings. They told us about it. Like my CIA handler demanded that Iraq had to give us this. And they insisted that if it happened, there would be dire consequences.

Now, what you're going to see in my book -- and we have more copies of my book outside [EXTREME PREJUDICE], and we've got more here, too. There was something else going on that summer that was very beautiful. This peace framework that we had been working on was magnificent.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17670
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: CIA Whistleblower Susan Liondauer Exposes Everything!

Postby admin » Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:50 am

Image

It was turning out just glorious for a peace dividend. The Iraqis were now offering the weapons inspections, which, of course, the United States had very vigorous standards for the weapons inspections. Iraq was offering cooperation with anti-terrorism, to allow the FBI to go in. And Iraq started to offer a lot more. A lot more came on the table. By June and July of 2001, Iraq was offering the United States preferential contracts --

Image

now think about the economy today -- preferential contracts for the United States corporations on telecommunications, healthcare, hospital equipment, pharmaceuticals, and transportation. Iraq offered to buy 1 million American-manufactured automobiles every year for 10 years. Think of what that would have done for the economy. Think about non-dual use factory production. Because the CIA was like, "If we are going to give up these darn sanctions, we're going to take a pound of flesh with it." They had no -- and whether you like the CIA or not, and most of you, 99% of you don't like the CIA. I realize that. Of course! But the CIA was doing what it was supposed to do. Whether you like it or not, they were taking care of what is in the best interests of the United States Government, with the best interests of the United States economy. And they were not going to let Iraq punish the United States. And I hated the sanctions. I was doing this because I hated the sanctions. I was doing it because they had destroyed education. They wiped out literacy in a single generation. They destroyed the hospitals and the healthcare system. Iraq performed the second heart transplant in the world, and we wiped them out. Okay? 11,000 people died every month.

Image

By the end of 1996, 500,000 children had died from sanctions. And they only counted five-year-olds and younger. They didn't even count the 6-year-olds, because the United Nations was holding back the numbers. And after that report, in December of 1996, the United Nations never published another report on the deaths. So frequently what you will hear is that only 500,000 children died. But in fact, they continued to die. And approximately 1 million children died. They were babies! They weren't even alive when the first Gulf War happened. This was an offense against -- this is genocide. This is a mass genocide. So that's my motivation.

This peculiar linking-together of opposites -- knowledge with ignorance, cynicism with fanaticism -- is one of the chief distinguishing marks of Oceanic society. The official ideology abounds with contradictions even when there is no practical reason for them. Thus, the Party rejects and vilifies every principle for which the Socialist movement originally stood, and it chooses to do this in the name of Socialism. It preaches a contempt for the working class unexampled for centuries past, and it dresses its members in a uniform which was at one time peculiar to manual workers and was adopted for that reason. It systematically undermines the solidarity of the family, and it calls its leader by a name which is a direct appeal to the sentiment of family loyalty. Even the names of the four Ministries by which we are governed exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely. In no other way could the ancient cycle be broken. If human equality is to be for ever averted -- if the High, as we have called them, are to keep their places permanently -- then the prevailing mental condition must be controlled insanity.

-- Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984), by George Orwell


But the CIA did not have my motivation. They were out to make sure that the United States was not going to be punished for what they had done.

Image

And believe me, by this point, we just wanted to get rid of the sanctions. The Iraqis were like, "If they will get rid of the sanctions, you bet, we'll give them anything that they want." So before 9/11, you could have had every single thing you possibly could dream of. And if the CIA could have thought of more to ask for, we would have. We would have asked for more. We were shameless!

Okay. [Sighs] So you have peace that's breaking out in the middle east. You have the 9/11 warnings. And then in August of 2000, we went into high mode, high activity mode. I can tell you the exact day: August 2nd. And after I tell you this I'll open it up to questions. On August 2nd was the Senate nomination hearings for Robert Mueller to head the FBI. He was going to be the FBI director. And I was on the phone with my CIA handler Richard Fuisz. And I said, "There's not one single terrorism investigation this man hasn't thrown. He threw the Oklahoma City bombing investigation, he threw Lockerbie."

Image

And I said, "this man should not be the FBI director when this next attack occurs." And Richard Fuisz said to me, "My God, what if there is no FBI director when this happens?" I said, "Do you think it's that soon? Do you think the attack is imminent?" He said, "Oh, yeah. It's absolutely just in the next couple of weeks." And I said, "Well, God, Richard, I'll go back to New York right now, and I'll pump the Iraqis to see if they've got anything from Baghdad. I'll see if they have any news for us."

Image

And he said, "Oh my God, Susan, don't go back. DO NOT GO BACK TO NEW YORK CITY. IT'S TOO DANGEROUS! WE ARE EXPECTING THE USE OF A MINIATURE THERMONUCLEAR DEVICE."

Image

And they were not afraid that I was going to be hurt by like falling debris in the World Trade Center. I wasn't going to be at the World Trade Center. They were afraid of radiation contamination. Like the winds blowing the radioactive stuff. And he was like, "Don't go up there. We're expecting mass casualties." And I said, "Well, Richard, I'll go up there -- and I can tell you the exact day, it was a Thursday -- and I said, "I will go up to New York on Saturday, and I'll report to you on Monday! And we'll just find out if the Iraqis have anything to give us."

Image

I went up to New York, and the Iraqis said, "Ain't got nothing! We don't know! We don't know anything about this! You keep telling us about this, and the only way we know about it is because you're talking about it. Well, we don't have any information to give you! And if we did, we understand the consequences. We know that if we don't help you, you're going to go to war with us if you think we did. And if there was anything we could give you, we would do it!"

So I go back and I report that on August 6th. On August 6th there is a memo to the President telling him that this is a high security threat; that it is an emergency level; that it's imminent!

Image

Okay. At my meeting with Richard Fuisz, Richard Fuisz does something very important. He tells me that because of my direct contacts with Iraq and Libya, I should be the one, I am perfectly positioned -- because everyone likes to think that Iraq and Libya are involved in terrorism to begin with -- I should be the one to contact U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's office. And I should tell them that we're looking for what's called "An Emergency Broadcast Alert," across all agencies, seeking any fragment of intelligence involving airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center, identified specifically. [LC-1] And I make that phone call. My conversation with Richard Fuisz was on August 6th, so probably August 7th, August 8th, I call them. And immediately I talk to them. You see, you guys couldn't get this number, but I have it. I have the number inside the Attorney General's office. I'm not calling a switchboard, I'm calling his private staff. Okay? I'm calling his government liaison office. No, no, no, that's not true. I call his private internal office. There are about 20 members of his private staff. His legislative director is there; his government relations person is there.

Image

But I call inside that office. And they give me the phone number for the office of counterterrorism. They say, "repeat exactly what you just told us, and tell them."

Image

I am told that John Ashcroft said, "Oh, those CIA people keep talking about terrorism. And they keep talking about this darn airplane hijacking. And they are so paranoid. And why do they keep bugging us about it?" That's what I'm told he said. [Laughs] But I did what I did.

Image

And when I did that, I apparently tripped some wires. Because it denied the White House, it denied the Justice Department and the Attorney General's office, of deniability, plausible deniability. And that's very important. And that is why they came after me so hard, and tried to destroy me utterly. Because they could not admit to you that we had absolutely anticipated this thing. We knew it was going to happen exactly as it did go down, with one exception. And then I'm going to finish this, and then I'll open the floor to questions.

Image

What I have learned since then -- now, all the things I have told you are things that I did directly. So I'm not relating what somebody else did, or a conversation that somebody else had that has been reported to me. This is direct, primary knowledge from my own experience. But what I'm going to tell you now is from somebody else. Okay? And so I distinguish these two things. I have been told by somebody who saw the videos, that at the World Trade Center, from approximately August 23rd, and it could have been August 22nd, it could have been August 24th, okay, approximately August 23rd until approximately September 3rd, and again it could be September 2nd --

Image

the spooks can be weird about this stuff, okay? They could say, "Okay, it wasn't September 4th. So, 'no'." No, it could have been September 3rd, okay? It could have been September 2nd. Right within a couple of days of this, my friend says that at approximately 3:00 in the morning, strange vans -- and maybe three of them, not just a couple --

Image

the way he put it was "a couple of vans" -- so we're thinking three, possibly four, but most likely three, "a couple of vans arrived at 3:00 in the morning, after the janitorial trucks had left the building." And it's very important, because they were able to identify the vans according to make, model, color, and there were no markings on the vans. But the janitorial vans did have markings. And so they were able to distinguish these are not the same vans. And they know how the janitorial trucks left the building. They actually tracked the paths that the janitorial trucks took to drive home. Like the janitorial workers were driving down certain roads to get over to their houses. And the CIA, or the FBI, or the NSA folks, tracked those people home. And he was quite convinced that these are not the same trucks. And from the hours of 3:00 and 5:00, these trucks had never been in this building before. It was an anomaly, definitely. It wasn't like it was going on for months and months and it just continued. They showed up for 10 days, 10 or 11 days approximately, then they were never seen again. And that's when they believe they wired the building.

Image

And my friend told me, absolutely, it was a thermite bomb with potential sulfur in it. The important thing about a thermite bomb is it is an extraordinary heat producing bomb. Okay? It takes steel and it creates molten steel. So it takes beams of steel and it turns it into molten steel. And it just rots, everything underneath just sinks into the ground, like what you saw. And it is a special U.S. military grade weapon. Okay? It is a military grade weapon. It's not something you could make -- ever! -- in your kitchen, or your garage, or your living room. It is impossible for you to do this. This is a U.S. military weapon.

Image

And so I do believe that that helps to explain some of the missing pieces. And I believe this is what happened: They had known about the terrorist attack for months. There is a long-term advance knowledge. Assets are being watched. The so-called "terrorists", whether they are real -- Mohamed Atta was an asset, trained by the United States government, supervised by the United States government, and I can assure you that assets -- and I'm speaking directly from my own personal experience -- assets are heavily controlled individuals. I was never dealing with Iraq and Libya without somebody paying extremely close attention to me at every stage. My phones were tapped, and at some point they had wired my house. When they had the handover of the two Libyan men, I went down to my basement the same day that they handed over the men, and my ceiling of my basement had been torn out. And there were cable wires dangling from the ceiling. About a dozen cable wires.

Image

And I had a contractor come over to my house, and he said, "Wow, somebody put a real, kickass stereo system in your house. That's amazing!" He said, "You have these wires going to every single room in your house. Even in your bathroom."

Image

And I was like, "Oooh." He said, "it's everywhere." He said, "You must have like a stereo system that just rocks in this house!"

So anyway, but the point is that assets, there is no way that these assets could function without everyone knowing every single detail of what they were doing. There is no way they could have hidden. They could not have disguised their actions from their handlers. Even if they tried to disguise it, it wouldn't work. Believe me, it wouldn't work. No. It's impossible. Impossible.

Image

And so it's more likely that they were using Mohamed Atta to GUIDE the conspiracy, to track the conspiracy. And then they discovered they were bozo pilots, they were clowns, they weren't any good at this flying stuff. And now they had an agenda. And the agenda was that when this attack happened, they were going to go to war with Iraq. But, "Oh, gosh, we have a problem now." Because the problem is they're not going to be able to do the job. "Uh oh! Oh! What a bummer!" And now I'm speaking again from experience.

The 1993 World Trade Center attack killed five people. The bombing of the USS Cole killed 12 people. And once the smoke clears, and the chaos is over, and the noise is done, there's certainly not enough damage that would allow a government, a pro-war cabal, to throw itself into a new war with Iraq, which they wanted to do! They had already decided to do it. And so that is the motivation.

The thing is, any police officer will tell you, there is no crime without a motive and opportunity. And we had both. So it's not like they just spontaneously wired the World Trade Center. They knew it was coming. And they wanted to make sure they had maximum damage when it hit. They knew they were going to use the airplanes as the cover to demolish the building.

Image

A lot of people in the 9/11 Truth community have gotten kind of -- when I first broke this news, a lot of people attacked me. And they said, "You're saying there were airplane hijackings. No, no, there was a demolition." And I'm like saying, "No, no, there's both of it. Both things happened. They knew the airplanes were going to be hijacked, so they used it as a cover to guarantee maximum destruction, because they already knew the consequence of war."

So, there you have it. [Laughs] Okay [Points to a questioner]

Image

Q. I forget what you said that your job was. You were a go-between?

A. I was what is called an "asset." I was an intelligence asset. I was supervised by handlers for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. I was not covert. I was "covert," from your end. Like the American people had no idea that President Clinton had opened up a back channel, because they didn't want you all to know this. But in fact, from the very first meetings that I had at the Iraqi embassy, and the Libyan embassy, they were told who I was. They knew that I was a passionate, anti-sanctions activist, and passionately anti-war. I hated the first Gulf War. I protested the Gulf War. And I wanted to do anything that I could to try to create communications -- they couldn't have formal communications because of the sanctions, they were officially on the pariah list --- and yet they had to have some kind of communications and discussion on terrorism specifically.

Q. So my question is, you were a back channel between everybody? I find it odd that your boss doesn't talk to the people in the administration.

A. Oh, he did!

Q. And they sent you over there to yell at people, and tell them stuff.

A. No, no, I know that he did. What he did was, I believe -- and I could be wrong about this -- but I believe that he contributed to the White House memo, the presidential directive, instruction, request. There's a formal term for that. I'm afraid I can't remember off the top of my head what it is. He did contribute to that. And he had vastly more information than I did. I was getting all my knowledge from him. But the fact was that we needed fast turnaround on this, because we thought the attack was within a couple of weeks. In fact, the attack didn't occur for another -- this was August 6th, and it occurred over a month later. But we thought the attack could come as early as, you know, the third or fourth week of August. We thought it was imminent.

Q. [Inaudible]

A. He probably did also. Everybody was doing it. See, this is the thing that -- no offense -- but there was so much discussion about this attack. Everybody was talking about it. George Tenet had some meetings. Other analysts had meetings at the White House that Condoleezza Rice has like conveniently pretended didn't happen. But there was a lot of knowledge. And the fact that I would be able to get the Attorney General's attention, and his staff's attention, by saying, "I'm in direct contact with Iraq" -- that's kind of like a bona fide thing. In the CIA they call it a bona fide. And it wasn't like a supervisory thing at that point. They wanted someone with direct contact.

Image

Because I had direct contact with the events, and I could cite that and say ...

Image

"You need to listen to me. Because I spoke with the Iraqis on Saturday. And I need to tell you this." You see what I mean? I know he did other things too.

Image

Q. In the course of your talk, what I haven't heard is any real evidence that there was a genuine jihadi plot. Maybe that's in your book. But you haven't said anything to show me that such a plot existed. In fact, the impression I get from the evidence that you've presented about what your bosses were talking about what was going on in the U.S. government, is that the U.S. government was trying to create a predictive situation with this attack, which in my opinion could well have been the sum and substance of the attack. And that, as I said, I haven't seen anything that you've said that shows me there was a genuine jihadi plot.

A. You know, this is a very good question. Because it's really questionable that there was a jihadi plot. I do believe there were hijackers. Now, I have to tell you that I do believe there were hijackers. On the other hand, I know that the people they did identify were assets. Okay? They worked for the United States government. And the men who were identified as the hijackers were not jihadis. They were not devoutly religious men. They went to strip clubs. They drank alcohol. They smoked cigarettes. They chased women. Real, deep, authentic jihadis would do none of that. And so it's really curious to me as to what their -- and I don't have an answer for you, unfortunately -- but what their final minutes must have been on this earth. What did they think they were doing? I truly do not know. I don't know if they just thought it was a training exercise. I don't know if they thought -- I just don't know. But I do not believe they were jihadis, real jihadis.

Q. One other point. You say that there was a point in midsummer 2001, when the CIA and elements in the U.S. government may have become concerned that having planned this event, cared for it, that the alleged jihadi pilots weren't going to be able to accomplish the goal. Well now, according to the official version of 9/11, they did accomplish the goal of flying the airplanes into the buildings. And so, do you think that the CIA made a mistake, and underestimated the talent of these pilots?

A. Well, here's the thing. They did fly into the building. Of course,they did. And they could have been on automatic pilot -- that makes sense. We know that there was a heightened GPS, and a heightened cell phone activity that is very unusual.

Image

Usually, the GPS only works to, it doesn't work to certain altitudes. And at a scale of like 1-10, the GPS signal was working at a 10, whereas ordinarily it might work at a 4. See? And so something was helping boost. And it had to be boosted. It couldn't have just spontaneously done this on its own.

Image

Something had to be boosting the GPS signal. And it's just a matter of scientific requirement that it had to be boosted. And it was!

The cell phone was the same thing. You know, some people have tried to say that the cell phone conversations did not happen. I do believe they did happen. I do believe that people got through to their spouses. But again, you see, there had to be some technological boost for it to be done. And I think the hijackers got a lot of help. They got a lot of help.

Q. Have you considered like Russ Baker's "Family Secrets," and Annie Jacobsen's "Area 51" that just came out recently? And the last one I just read was Naomi Wolf's, "The End of America"?

A. Yes. Good.

Q. So how can you expect us, knowing the corruption of moral character -- I define where we're at as a spiritual crisis. And in that sense, that's the big picture. So I'm sort of interested in you as part of that. Because, I'm sure that there are people who are dedicated in the CIA who are very trustworthy --

A. [Shakes her head pessimistically] Well --

Q. Well, trustworthy in the sense that their motivations are clear. But I think overall, considering all the torture and long history that it's had, you can't believe anything. Basically, you can't. There's so much spin with it. I'm not saying there aren't dedicated individuals. I don't think everything is black and white. So what I'd like to get from you in part is, first of all, your picture of the big, overall. What's the primary motive? You said before, but who? I mean, what is the big picture? Who are the big honchos at the top that are directing it?

Image

A. Well, I'd like to answer this on a couple of levels. First of all, the CIA has a long track record of false flag operations on itself.

-- MEPHISTOPHELES
(In FAUST'S long mantle.)

Reason and Knowledge only thou despise,
The highest strength in man that lies!
Let but the Lying Spirit bind thee
With magic works and shows that blind thee,
And I shall have thee fast and sure!—
Fate such a bold, untrammelled spirit gave him,
As forwards, onwards, ever must endure;
Whose over-hasty impulse drave him
Past earthly joys he might secure.
Dragged through the wildest life, will I enslave him,
Through flat and stale indifference;
With struggling, chilling, checking, so deprave him
That, to his hot, insatiate sense,
The dream of drink shall mock, but never lave him:
Refreshment shall his lips in vain implore—
Had he not made himself the Devil's, naught could save him,
Still were he lost forevermore!

-- Faust, by Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe


And one of the reasons that I may be more trustworthy, is that I was an asset, not a CIA director. My CIA handler received $13 million, tax free. He didn't even have to pay a dollar in taxes. Is that not the sweetest thing that you have ever heard in your life? From the 9/11 investigation of emergency appropriations that were intended for Iraq, to secure Iraq's cooperation. And he took the money, and you've never heard him speak. And when I was under indictment, my own CIA handler refused to speak to my attorneys for five years. If he had spoken to my attorneys at any time at all, we could have ended my indictment entirely.

But the other thing is that I was -- the reason you should trust me is because I paid for this. [Laughs] I was locked up in prison on a military base for a year, and I was held under indictment for five years. And if you do a little research on my story, you'll find the government was so threatened by what I was going to say, that they actually argued to -- and this is in the record; there's a history of this; you can confirm this -- they wanted to forcibly drug me with Haldol, Ativan and Prozac, which would have chemically lobotomized me. Because they admitted that I was not hallucinating. I do not suffer depression -- uh, for those of you who do suffer depression, sorry, but I don't. I don't have mood disturbances -- they said I had good eye contact; I was cooperative, smiling; they could not identify anything wrong with me except that my defense was that I had worked in anti-terrorism for nine years, and I warned about 9/11. My team warned about 9/11. And they tried to detain me up to ten years. They actually petitioned the court for the right, under the Patriot Act, for the right to detain me up to 10 years in prison with no trial, and no hearing. Imagine that! The government is arguing that we don't have to give this woman a hearing. We can just lock her up indefinitely. And I was the test case on this. And it was horrible! And they wanted to lock me up, and forcibly drug me at the same time, so that I would be so destroyed.

Image

They told the judge they had no idea how long my "cure" -- MY "CURE"?! -- was going to take. But they wanted it.

Q. Who was the judge in your case?

A. The judge in my case was Michael Mukasey. Michael Mukasey later became U.S. Attorney General. And I fought so hard. And my beloved companion, sweet, wonderful Jay Fields, who died of cancer unfortunately, never lived to see me exonerated. He fought in the blogs. And he fought on alternative radio. Because the corporate media refused to cover my story. They didn't want to tell you what was going on. They implied very strongly that I was a religious maniac. And I do believe in God, and I have a spiritual life. Yes, I do. But I'm not a religious maniac. I guess a religious maniac would be someone like Elizabeth Smart, rapist-kidnapper who went into court and was like spouting religious stuff, and was standing up and singing hymns in court. Stuff like that.

There was -- I call it my "amnesty international moment." The Justice Department had already petitioned to forcibly drug me. And I was waiting for a decision. And one morning -- I was locked up in prison at this point; I had been held on Carswell Airforce Base for 8 months, and then I was moved to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York for four months -- and one morning at 5:30 in the morning, the guard wakes me up, he shakes me and says, "You're going to court today." And I'm like weeping. I'm thinking that they've got the decision, and they're going to send me back to Carswell to be drugged. And I'm hysterical. I was absolutely hysterical. And I get into the courtroom, and I'm in a holding cage that's about the size of this table. And they come in, my attorney comes in, and he says, "Oh my God, someone has started a blog on your case. And people are writing your judge. They are writing Judge Mukasey. You got to tell your friend to stop doing this."

Image

I was like, "NEVER! No! No way! "

Image

And literally, I grabbed the bars and I said, "We are never going to stop! We are going to fight to defend this Constitution.

Image

You are breaking the law! And we are never going to shut up until this is done. You can tell that crooked prosecutor that he can just go to hell, because you're never going to shut me up now." This was a mistake. This was a huge mistake that they did this to me.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17670
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: CIA Whistleblower Susan Liondauer Exposes Everything!

Postby admin » Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:04 am

And we went in, and the judge was like -- so, at that point, Jay had published psych records. After my arrest I had been ordered to attend -- this actually saved me! -- I had been ordered to attend weekly psychology meetings. I had never had any psychological problems. And I had a year's worth of documentation saying that I suffered no mental illness: no depression, no psychoses, no mania, no nothing, no mood disturbances. And these are in the back of my book. So you can actually look at this stuff for yourself. And you can see the papers with your own eyes.

Image

And the judge was like, "This is extraordinary. You're telling me that this woman is incompetent, and she is suffering from this grave mental illness, and yet she has all these records which are on the bloody Internet. Why are these papers not in my courtroom?" And the judge was like, "Uh uh, this is just not going to happen." And at that point I was saved. Because the judge was like, "This woman is not cooperating."

Image

If I had been cooperative, you know, they would have done it. If I had been passive, they would have done it. But I mean, I'm a fighter. And they still wouldn't give me a hearing. And I know how to fight. I'm an activist, and an asset. Believe me, I know how to fight. And it was like the Patriot Act was so hideous, so big, so powerful, that there was nothing they were going to let break through.

Image

But Judge Mukasey also did the financial case on the 9/11, the insurance claims for 9/11 for Larry Silverstein, who went to his synagogue. They both attend the same synagogue. Yeah, cozy. Very cozy.

Q. Did Mohamed Atta willingly sacrifice himself, or did he know? --

A. I do not know.

Image

See, I wonder about all of these things. Because I wonder if they thought it was like a practice, of if they thought this was -- I do not know the answer to that! It's fascinating to think what they must have thought.

Image

Q. Many of the foreign newspapers have reported that many of the hijackers are still alive. I think 6 or 7 of them were. One of them is a pilot for the Saudi Arabian airlines. I believe one lives in Los Angeles. So there was all this. So it doesn't make sense that there were these hijackers who hijacked planes. I mean, obviously something is wrong with this story, that these people are still alive.

A. Yes, but I wonder though whether -- as an asset, this is probably going to frustrate you, because I'm trained to stop where I -- it's very much compartmentalized. And there are certain things that I know from my own direct, personal experience that I can tell you. And then there are other things which I am taught to draw a line. And it may drive you crazy, but there are some things that I cannot answer, because I don't know. And as an asset I'm told to stop, and to always distinguish what I actually know from what I don't know. And that's one of the things I don't know. Sorry. But I do believe there were hijackings.

Q. How do you hold on to the story that there were hijackings?

A. But we don't necessarily know who the hijackers were.

Q. We also have other information that some of the serial numbers on these planes were located several years later, and these planes are still in existence. So there's a lot of strange --

And then there was that plane that went down in Pennsylvania with no plane parts.

A. That was shot down.

Q. There were no plane parts anywhere.

A. There was a plane that was shot down, and I know that there was a pilot who shot down one of the airplanes, and he is locked up in prison in Florida right now.

Q. Who is he?

A. I don't know. I could get it for you. I will get it for you. I'm sorry, I have been told his name before, and I'm actually doing a radio interview with Michael Hertzog tomorrow, who is the one who told me about the guy. And I will get that information, and I will pass it to our friend over here. And we'll get that to you. Because he needs help. The last I heard, it could be, I hope he's been released. And he may have been released by now. But the last I heard he was still in prison. And if he is still in prison, it would be awfully nice if you guys could help him.

Q. Who's to gain and who's to lose?

A. The tragedy was that before 9/11 ever happened, they already knew about this peace framework. And they already knew that they could have, that the United States would receive no punishments. They would not face any problem because of the years of support for the sanctions. The Iraqis wanted the sanctions off so badly, that they were going to give the United States everything that they could have wanted. So this is even going on before 9/11 happens. And they were going to give them, you know, 1 million American-made automobiles every year, telecommunications -- that would be satellites, phone, TV -- the CIA could have been snooping through all the middle east phone conversations. It was crazy what they lost: healthcare, hospital equipment, pharmaceuticals. Just on and on. Just amazing things. Oil. They could have had everything. Even oil. And the only group that wasn't going to benefit, was the military-industrial complex. Because this would have been peace. This would have been a very prosperous peace. Believe me, the CIA was driving a hard bargain. Anything we could think to ask. And I have to say again, I'm anti-sanctions. So I know a lot of people would say, "Well, that's not fair to do to the Iraqis." And I agree with you. I agree with you. But it was what the CIA wanted. And they were going to have every single thing that they could think to get. And at the same time, we all knew that it would have to be tremendous to appease George Bush, because he was out for the Daddy Bush fantasy -- this delusion! It was a delusion. But the one group that was not going to benefit was the military-industrial complex. And they were going to be the big losers in this whole thing. They were not going to be able to have their wars. They were not going to be able to sell their military weapons systems: the $400 billion for this equipment or that equipment. They wouldn't need any of it. And so they were the losers. And they were just too powerful.

Q. This isn't actually a question, but more of a comment. We were talking about the Pennsylvania Flight 93 alleged crash, and I just want to say that anyone can claim, any pilot can claim to have shot down the airliner. It's easy to claim something like that. But did it happen? And I just want to point out that not only was there no plane debris at the alleged crash site, but neither was there a debris-field anywhere else. We know from incidents like Lockerbie that when a plane blows up overland, it leaves a debris field.

A. Well, it's also the Pentagon. I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by an airplane. I mean, all that debris was suddenly, just magically removed? [Laughs] There was no airplane there, either. So there's still a lot of questions about 9/11 that I cannot answer for you. And I'm sorry. These are good questions that you're asking. And it's not like I'm trying to blow you off. There are just some things I don't know. But hopefully I'm going to give you enough new information that you'll be able to put some more pieces of it together.

Q. You mentioned your compartmentalized structure at the Agency. And I think that's pretty well understood how one person can be sitting here working on the project, and another person's over there, and they're not allowed really to look at what the other one is doing. I think you know -- it's been documented -- there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 military drills running on 9/11?

Image

A. Yes.

Q. Which is absolutely unprecedented. Not only that, there was one drill that was specifically on a hijacking, that was exactly the scenario that we're told transpired. And you probably studied Webster Griffin Tarpley's analysis of this, his "9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA," how he breaks this down -- very convincingly, I believe -- that the operation was accomplished through the drills. And certain people were doing certain things and probably likely didn't even know that they were involved in an operation.

A. Yes.

Q. And couldn't share information because of this compartmentalization. And I'm just wondering if you had an opportunity to talk, after all of your ordeal, with anybody else who was able to confirm --

A. Well, I will tell you that the 9/11 conspiracy is based on something called "Project Bojinka." Are all of you familiar with "Project Bojinka"? Bojinka was designed by Ramzi Yousef, who was the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center attack. And in his grand scheme, 11 airplanes would be hijacked, and would strike different targets all over the United States.

Image

The World Trade Center would be one. And then they would hit the White House. They'd hit the Justice Department. They'd also hit like Chicago. They'd hit Los Angeles. And throughout the whole country there'd be strikes. And the military discovered this when they found, or the CIA discovered this, when they arrested Ramzi Yousef in the Philippines in 1995, and they found the blueprint for this 9/11, what became the 9/11 attack, on his computer. Okay, and he called it "Project Bojinka. And at that point, the military began to run simulated counter-strategies for what you would do if there was an airplane hijacking scenario that was attacking various targets throughout the United States. And one of the targets was the Pentagon. And then the Pentagon said it was too outrageous, that nobody would actually attack the Pentagon this way, so maybe they should drop the Pentagon scenario. So they did.

Image

But even though they had rehearsed Project Bojinka, on September 10-September 12, NORAD was on high alert doing military exercises, because allegedly the former Soviet Union, the Russians, were doing their military exercises. So we timed our military exercises allegedly to theirs. And they were supposed to be on heightened alert just in the course of practice. They were supposed to be on heightened alert for any invasion of sovereignty of airspace, sovereign airspace, on those dates. And yet even though the military was on high alert, they took no action when the airplanes were hijacked. And they didn't scramble. They broke all of their own protocols.

Q. But weren't they mostly sent up in directions away from the --

Image

A. Yeah. There you go! Yes, yes, yes.

Image

And they sent one jet, they turned one jet around, and sent it after, one fighter, to go track down --

Q. -- drills and exercises that had already taken them out, and basically left the eastern seaboard unattended?

A. Yes.

Q. This is supposed to be the smartest military in the world, right?

A. Yeah, yeah. There you go.

Q. [Inaudible]

A. Other than me, and the guy who was allegedly involved in flying the plane, shooting down 93, who they don't want you to know about, who was held in prison for a couple of years at least, and I don't know if he's out or not. I mean, they gave him a real hard time.

Q. Can you remind me again what the sanctions were for? And two questions. I just wanted to get clear what you were arrested for.

Image

A. Good. The sanctions were to punish Iraq for allegedly having weapons of mass destruction. And they said that they would keep the sanctions on Iraq until all weapons of mass destruction were confirmed to have been destroyed. Now, it appears that they were actually destroyed by the end of 1996 or 1997. But the United States had an ulterior agenda, which was they were not going to let go of the sanctions until Saddam was out of power. But what had happened was, by the year 2000, while Bill Clinton was still in office, the international loathing for sanctions had become intense. Two million people had died from sanctions. Between 1.7 million and 2.2 million had died. And the international community was violating the sanctions. The German pilots, and Jordanian pilots were -- actually, it was coming from all over Europe -- Germany was the first. And they had pilots fly humanitarian supplies through sovereign airspace, and land at Baghdad Airport.

Image

And then a whole bunch of other countries followed suit. And they were all like, "We're not going to do this. This is wrong; it is immoral; it is a crime against humanity. And we recognize that."

Image

And so at that point the CIA -- I wanted to do it -- but at that point, the CIA knew that they were losing control of the situation, and that they'd better step in and do something. And I wanted to end the sanctions. So I was glad the pilots were doing this. But the CIA was very expedient. It was politically expedient. They were losing control of the situation. They wanted to take back their power.

ex•pe•di•ent adjective \ik-ˈspē-dē-ənt\
: providing an easy and quick way to solve a problem or do something
1: suitable for achieving a particular end in a given circumstance
2: characterized by concern with what is opportune; especially : governed by self-interest
-- Merriam Webster


Q. And what were you arrested for?

A. I was arrested for, I was accused of several things:

Image

(1) I was accused of acting as an unregistered Iraqi agent, because I had delivered a letter to my cousin ...

Image

who is the Chief of Staff to George Bush, telling him that the war in Iraq would be catastrophic, and outlining several of the consequences like (a) democracy, (b) would throw power to Islamic fundamentalists, (c) and there would be a rise of terrorist attacks, (d) and the Iraqi people hated the sanctions, and they would hate America for having done all this, and if they could get their hands on America, it would be just a very ugly, brutal occupation -- and they'd fight us! That was my letter. I went to jail for that.

Delivered to Andy Card 1/8/03

January 6, 2003

Dear Andy,

I am writing you now as family.

As you might imagine, I am deeply saddened by this march to War with Iraq. I have worked so hard to secure cooperation with the weapons inspections, precisely so that a confrontation could be avoided. I am deeply proud of the success of my contributions. I have behaved with the utmost respect for the security of the international community and the best interests of disarmament in the Middle East.

Andy, I can still influence this situation.

Therefore, I need to ask you, one last time, what specific actions can be taken by Baghdad, so that President Bush can declare victory without going to War. What do you need? Cooperation on terrorism, including interviewing authority for the FBI? Does the U.S. want the Lukoil Contract? What else? I can get it. Just tell me.

If you call me at 301-891-0954, or send the Secret Service, I will come to you at any hour of the day or night. I will fly to Baghdad with 24 hours notice to deliver any message directly to that leadership, regarding any of the above suggestions or anything else you seek.

Even at this late hour, Andy, I can get the kind of results that will enable President Bush to declare a proud victory without endangering the lives of U.S. soldiers or inciting further terrorist actions against American interests.

The world community supports weapons inspections, not war. Please don't be fooled by security briefings that seek to assure you of what you want to hear. Former British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd is not the only leader frightened by the hellish consequences of a U.S. War against Iraq. The United States has lost a great deal of sympathy for its War on Terrorism; diplomats at the U.N. know this and fear an anti-western backlash. They recognize sympathy has got to be revitalized in order to subvert the independent, non-aligned cells that otherwise will fire up.

I ask you, Andy, what matters more? Trying to depose Saddam Hussein? Or the security of New York City and San Antonio? Which is the priority for America? Because surely you know that the security of New York and Los Angeles and Boston will be forfeited -- for years to come -- if the U.S. becomes an outright aggressor against Iraq or any other Middle Eastern nation.

My dearest cousin, I want President Bush to succeed. America needs his Presidency to success. But this War with Iraq will hurt us, too. In six weeks or six months, it won't matter. Because when it hits, it will hit so hard it will not matter that there was every a delay -- The Iraqi people hate Americans, no matter what they think of Saddam. When I was in Baghdad last March, more than one Imam swore to me their people would tear off the arms and the legs of American soldiers, and decapitate them, and drag their bodies through the streets. They swore the women would fight, too.

Once the U.S. bombing starts, the Iraqi exiles will have no credibility as leaders. None whatsoever. They will be hated as pawns of the United States, and my God, let me tell you, Arabs can hate. A U.S. victory will never be sweet for long.

That hatred has kindled deeply because of the sanctions, Andy. Sanctions have killed 1.7 million human beings, including almost one million little children. Stop and think. What would an American father do to the man who killed three of his children, once that father could finally lay hands on his aggressor? Would he throw candy in the streets? No, he'd beat him to death and stab him 100 times until his arms were sore. And then he'd look for the next man, stalking until the right moment. In Baghdad, I met a man who lost 8 members of his immediate family in one year. That's right: Eight dead in ONE year. Multiply that by 20 million.

And so I am coming back to you again. Anytime, day or night, I will meet you anywhere. I will deliver any message. Or I will escort anyone you designate -- I will keep our meeting and the substance of our communications strictly confidential. Anything to resolve this crisis. Unlike Ambassador Negroponte, I can do this without drawing media attention.

Above all, you must realize that if you go ahead with this invasion, Osama bin Laden will triumph, rising from his grave of seclusion. His network will be swollen with fresh recruits, and other charismatic individuals will seek to build on his model, multiplying those networks. And the United States will have delivered the death blow to itself. Using your own act of war, Osama and his cohorts will irrevocably divide the hearts and minds of the Arab Street from moderate governments in Islamic countries that have been holding back that tide. Power to the people, what we call "democracy," will secure the rise of the fundamentalists.

And before the next Presidential election, Andy, it will become a disaster.

You are in my prayers. Let me help you. Please.

Your cousin,

Susan Lindauer

[Handwritten note]

Mr. Secretary --

I expect this would be a "short" discussion, and the U.S. would come away with full democratic reforms -- free elections w/intl. monitors, free opposition parties, free opposition newspapers, and free student organization at Universities. Given the military buildup, you could declare a great victory from a formidable position of strength. You could keep U.S. troops in place for 6 months to monitor compliance. And you could do it all without war.


And they also accused me of -- they called it "unlawful, financial transactions."

Image

I was accused of -- I'm not making this up -- of allegedly eating three lunches. I'm not making this up --

Image

three lunches with Iraqi diplomats, totalling $92.92. We have the receipts. And they called that a felony.

There were secret charges against me which we have deduced. We were never allowed to know what they were. See, on the Patriot Act, -- let me just tell you a little bit, because I think this is a good opportunity to explain.

When I was indicted, under the Patriot Act they are allowed to have secret charges, and secret evidence, and secret grand jury testimony.

Image

The Patriot Act is modeled on, pretty much verbatim in page upon page, identical to the old Communist Criminal, let's see, I guess it's the Soviet, let's see, there's a long name for it, "The Soviet Criminal Act," which set up the KGB apparatus, and allow people to make accusations against their neighbors without identifying themselves. And it set up the whole gulag system. And the Patriot Act is modeled on that Soviet law, "The Soviet Criminal Act." And it's almost verbatim to what that is. So I mean, this is a really scary, scary law.

Image

But I was accused of like possibly -- in the secret charges, one of what we believe is the secret charges is I received a book -- a BOOK! -- from the Iraqis, that was a book on depleted uranium. And that was considered classified. Because if we were to tell American soldiers about the health risks, and the rise of cancer rates, and birth defects, then it might demoralize American soldiers.

And then another thing is that Saddam's government tried -- I'm not making this up -- another secret charge was that I, we believe -- because I know what I was doing in the periods where they'd have a date, and I would know approximately what I was doing on that date -- and so another one was that the Iraqis tried to give the Bush administration several hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions during the presidential election, because they wanted to show that they wanted to be friends with America.

Image

And I had reported that to my Defense Intelligence handler, and he was like, "Holy shit! You got to tell the Iraqis not to do this. You gotta make them not do this." Because it reminded them all of the Asian fundraising crisis under Clinton. And he said, "Don't they watch C-Span? Don't they know they're not supposed to do this?" And he said, "You go back, and you tell them if we find out they gave money to the Republican party in this campaign, we're going to bomb them."

Image

But see, at this point, when Iraq had been bombed so many times, you couldn't threaten them with bombing anymore. Because they had already been attacked. How are you going to impress on people who -- "Oh, you're going to bomb us again? Okay! Sure!" You know?

Q. I just wanted to know how you knew Mohamed Atta was a CIA asset?

A. That's been very well established. They've admitted that he was a CIA asset.

Q. Could you send me a reference or something so I can verify that?

A. Um, I will find a reference for you and give it to these guys. And, yeah, sure. I'll get you some references on that. But it has been verified that he was. And he received some military training, too.

Atta had learned at U.S. military facilities, we discovered. As many as seven of the hijackers were in this country at the invitation of the U.S. Government. Keeping this knowledge secret has been an objective of the cover-up currently in progress.

On the Saturday following the Tuesday attack, the Los Angeles Times broke the story in a long article on their front page ...

"A defense official said two of the hijackers were former Saudi fighter pilots," reported the paper, "who had studied in exchange programs at the Defense Language School at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas and the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama."

The story went wide the next day, Sunday, September 15th. Newsweek, the Washington Post and the Miami Herald all reported as many as seven of the terrorist hijackers in the September 11th attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations.

Two of 19 suspects named by the FBI, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi, have the same names as men listed at a housing facility for foreign military trainees at Pensacola. Two others, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami, have names similar to individuals listed in public records as using the same address inside the base," the Washington Post reported.

"In addition, a man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, while men with the same names as two other hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari, appear as graduates of the U.S. International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, and the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, respectively," the Post said.

According to the Post, seven of the suspected hijackers had been in the U.S. receiving military training. Newsweek said U.S. military officials gave the FBI information suggesting that five of the alleged hijackers received training in the 1990's at secure U.S. military installations. Three of them listed their address on driver licenses and car registrations as an address on the base of the Pensacola Naval Air Station which houses foreign-military flight trainees.

"Pentagon spokesman, Colonel Ken McClellan, said a man named Mohamed Atta had once attended the International Officer's School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama," reported USA Today.

Mohamed Atta attended International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. An Islamic fundamentalist learning snappy salutes in the Officer's Club?

This is a huge chunk of inconvenient knowledge. There were going to be a lot of questions. Someone was going to have to answer ... for a lot.

"But Atta is a fairly common surname in the Middle East," the Post quoted Laila Alquatami of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimnation Committee as saying, and the suspected hijacker's first name is "probably the No.1 name that is given to babies, in honor of the prophet Mohamed."

The Boston Globe reported the Pentagon's denial: "Some of the FBI suspects had names similar to those used by foreign alumni of U.S. military courses," said the Air Force in a statement. 'Discrepancies in their biographical data ... indicate we are probably not talking about the same people."'

How easy was it to tell the Pentagon was lying? Think about it. It is neither plausible nor logical that the reports were false because of seven separate cases of mistaken identity. One or two, maybe. But seven? No way.

Still, after this vague and perfunctory Pentagon denial, the story had an exceedingly short half-life. The Pentagon denied it. The media dropped it. It went away. There was no follow-up.

Had the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, Newsweek, the Miami Herald all been wrong?

None of the papers offered a retraction.

How could a story as major as this -- that many of the terrorists, including ringleader Mohammed Atta, had been in the U.S. to receive training at U.S. military facilities -- have gotten lost?

It wasn't lost, we discovered. And it wasn't wrong, either ...

It was suppressed.

***

The first thing we noticed in the Pentagon denial was that "probably not talking about the same people" doesn't strike quite the right tone of specificity one might expect of an investigation into people responsible for vaporizing 3,000 human beings.

It's not just vague. Given the circumstances, it's almost criminally vague.

When the Pentagon unveiled their big new bunker-busting bomb in Afghanistan, they didn't describe it as being a "kinda big" bomb, did they? No, they called it a "satellite-guided, two con bunker-busting bomb known as the EGBU-27."

Yet now Air Force spokesmen were persuading Newsweek, the Washington Post and the Knight Ridder newspapers to drop an immensely important revelation on the basis of statements like "name matches may not necessarily mean the students were the hijackers."

What if Nixon's press secretary Ron Ziegler had been able to wave Woodward and Bernstein off as the Watergate scandal came to light, by saying the burglars 'probably didn't have' White House ties?

The only answer we could see was that the initial press reports, while true, were also inconvenient, and were deliberately suppressed. Could America's vaunted free press be involved in an ongoing cover-up of something of this magnitude? We tried to find out. But we were stonewalled every step of the way.

We weren't the only ones being stonewalled. When Newsweek reported that three of the hijackers received training at the Pensacola Naval Station in Florida, home state Senator Bill Nelson fired off a fax to his friend, Attorney General John Ashcroft, demanding to know if it were true.

The Senator has still not received a reply, we heard from his spokesman, when we called his office eleven months later.

"In the wake of those reports, we asked about the Pensacola Naval Air Station but we never got a definitive answer from the Justice Department," stated the Senator's press spokesman.

"So we asked the FBI for an answer 'if and when' they could provide us one. Their response to date has been that they are trying to sort through something complicated and difficult."

"Speaking for Senator Nelson," concluded the spokesman, "we still do not know if three of the terrorists trained at one time in Pensacola or not."

From the spokesman's somewhat wry tone, we understood that he didn't expect Attorney General Ashcroft to respond to Senator Nelson's request until hell freezes over and Ashcroft skated down from Heaven to test the ice.

If a home state Senator couldn't get a response, there was little chance we could. Still, we called the Pentagon and spoke to a Major in the Air Force's Public Affairs Office who had been involved, she said, in crafting and disseminating the original Pentagon denial to the press.

She was the Public Information Officer who read the Air Force denial to the media, so she was familiar with the question, she told us, and she offered to help us achieve clarity.

"Biographically, they're not the same people," she explained patiently, using the same language contained in the Air Force's press release. "Some of the ages are twenty years off."

'Some' of the ages?' Could she be, perhaps, just a little more precise?

Negative.

Let's make this real simple, we said. We were only asking about one of the seven purported terrorists reported to have received military training in the U.S.

Mohamed Atta.

Was she saying that the age of the 'Mohamed Atta' who had attended the Air Force's International Officer's School at Maxwell Air Force Base was different than that of 'terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta?'

Not exactly, she admitted. She could not confirm that -- in this specific instance -- they had different ages. What she could do was once again deny that the International Officer's School attendee named Mohamed Atta had been the Mohamed Atta who piloted a passenger plane into the World Trade Center.

However, she could offer no specifics for her assertion, and repeatedly declined requests for biographical details about the Mohamed Atta who had trained at Maxwell Air Force Base. None of this kept her from shamelessly soldiering on.

"Mohamed is a very common name," she said.

It was indeed, we told her, making one final effort. We said we would be happy to help the Pentagon's investigative effort, especially since they were busy with other concerns. We offered to take it upon ourselves to track down the Mohamed Atta who had attended the Air Force's International Officer's School to confirm, once and for all, that he was not the Mohamed Atta said to have flown a jetliner into the side of a skyscraper in Manhattan.

All she had to do was tell us where the Mohamed Atta who had at tended International Officer's School at Maxwell AFB was from.

We would take it from there. Solve the mystery at no cost.

"I don't think you're going to get that information," the spokeswoman stated flatly.

Still, we pressed her again, and probably to the point of rudeness, to provide a few lonely specifics, and we were rewarded when she finally said, in exasperation: "I do not have the authority to tell you who (which terrorists) attended which schools."

It was hard to read this as anything other than a back-handed confirmation. When she said that she didn't have the authority, the clear implication was that someone else does ... Somewhere in the Defense Dept. a list exists with the names of Sept. 11 terrorists who received training at U.S. military facilities.

She just didn't have the authority to release it. End of story.

One obvious reason for this cover-up would be sparing the Pentagon the embarrassment of having to admit that some of the terrorists -- including ringleader Atta himself -- had only been in the U.S. to begin with to receive U.S. military training. But this may not be the most important consideration, which is why we've placed the story of Atta as Saudi Prince alongside reports that the terrorists received military training at secure U.S. bases.

Anyone receiving training in U.S. military programs, we learned, would not fit the portrait of a fanatical Islamic fundamentalist that's been painted of Mohamed Atta.

Gaining admittance to the International Officer's School at Maxwell AFB in Montgomery would have required Atta to be extremely well-connected with a friendly Arab government.

We learned just how well-connected and well-placed foreign nationals who attend International Officer's School are after finding the resume of Colonel and Staff Pilot Mohammed Ahmed Hamel Al Qubaisi, an International Officer's School graduate from the United Arab Emirates, posted on the Internet.

Currently, his resume stated, he was a Defense Military Naval & Air Attache at the United Arab Emirates embassy in Washington, after serving stints in his country's Embassy & Security Division as Chief of Intelligence, and in the UAE's Security Division/Air Force Intelligence & Security Directorate as Security Officer.

It's safe to say that Mr. Al Qubaisi is pretty dialed-in in the UAE, and the furthermost thing from a terrorist. He's a member of the Arab elite. It even looks like he's a spook.

So was Mohamed Atta.

And because he was, we're in a whole different ballgame than the one they've been announcing from high overhead in the Pentagon booth.

We heard from someone who works on Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, the former wife of a CIA pilot. "I have a girlfriend who recognized Mohamed Atta. She met him at a party at the Officer's Club," she told us.

"The reason she swears it was him here is because she didn't just meet him and say hello. After she met him she went around and introduced him to the people that were with her. So she knows it was him."

Saudis were a highly visible presence at Maxwell Air Force Base, she said. "There were a lot of them living in an upscale complex in Montgomery. They had to get all of them out of here."

"They were all gone the day after the attack."

-- Welcome to Terrorland -- Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-up In Florida, by Daniel Hopsicker
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17670
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: CIA Whistleblower Susan Liondauer Exposes Everything!

Postby admin » Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:04 am

Q. So, when I look at the audience here, we're pretty old. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

A. That's okay.

Q. Do you go to universities, or high schools? Because, you know, young people can stir things up, and do some major changes, you know. Can you do that, or do they say, "No, you can't"?

A. Well, actually, I really just started doing this, because my book came out just six months ago. And so I've done a lot of radio, and I've done a lot of blogging -- which is more youth, I guess. I don't know if that's fair to really say it's younger people. But I do a lot of radio, and a lot of new media stuff.

Q. What about college campuses?

A. I would love to do that. I would love to do that. This is really my first kind of book tour. But I would love to go to college campuses. I'm just kind of figuring out how to do it. Because part of the problem is, the corporate media will not cover my story at all, even when I was locked up in prison.

One of my favorite stories -- I know you guys all love Amy Goodman, but Amy Goodman -- you gotta hear what she did to me. When I was locked up, my boyfriend called her, and talked to her producers and said, "Please, Susan is the cousin of the Chief of Staff to the President. She covered the Iraqi embassy. She warned about 9/11. She's locked up on a military base on the Patriot Act. And they are refusing to give her a hearing. And she was the Chief Asset covering the Iraqi pre-war intelligence. The government is saying she is incompetent. And they are saying assets were incompetent. And yet she's accused -- and he gave her the letter, the Andy Card letter -- and said, "She wrote this letter, and it turned out she was right on all fronts. Couldn't you please interview her? Couldn't you do a story? Please, help us!" And you know what she did?

Image

She said, "Well, you know, maybe her attorney thinks this is a good strategy. We wouldn't want to upset things for settling the case."

Q. She had been told to stay away from this story.

A. Yeah, but you know, she did it herself. And she's to blame for it. And I will tell you, I will never forgive Amy Goodman for that.

Image

My boyfriend was like in tears. He was weeping. I mean, he was a retired navy guy. You know men! Some men don't cry. He cried. He broke down in tears. Not all men, but some men cry. He was really upset. And he was just like, "She won't do this." He was like just heart broken. He was heart broken for me.

Image

And I was locked up in prison at the time. And I'm on the prison phone saying, "What the fuck do you mean Amy Goodman won't do this?

Image

How could she not think this is a right story? What did you say to her to make her not do this story?"

Image

And he was like, "I don't know. I don't know. I told her."

Image

And I said, "Did you say this and this and this?" And he said, "Yeah!"

Q. I heard you on the Jeff [inaudible] program last week, on Libya, so that's very similar to what's happening right now.

A. There's no reason for the United States to be invading Libya at all. There is no justification for this. It's ironic because we're fighting "al Qaeda" in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Libya is actually, the Libyan rebels are radical Islamists who are trying to institute sharia. And whether you like sharia or not, or you like Gaddafi or not -- see, this is where you get, you're an asset. Whether you like Gaddafi -- you may hate him, you may think he's bad -- but the facts are the rebels are Islamic radicals.

Image

They do want to institute sharia. And at least be honest and say it. Because that's what you are going to get. And don't pretend you're somewhere else. Don't pretend these are people who are doing something different than what you say. That is what their goal is. And they don't want democracy. Gaddafi has been in power for 41 years, and I know it's time for change, but he has also had a tremendous track record on women's rights. They do not have to wear the abaya.

Image

They are "free" not to get married if they don't want to. Women are free to get divorces if they want.

Image

And when we talk about sharia, what I mean is that the Libyan rebels want the women to wear the burka. An abaya is the burka where they cover their hair and stuff. They don't have to do that now. They are going to have to do it in the future. They do not want women to have the right to reject marriage proposals. Under Gaddafi's government, they have the right.

Image

An Imam actually visits the women before marriage, and sits with them privately -- which is really unheard of -- and make sure that the women are not being pressured into a marriage. And if the young woman says that she is being pressured, under the law of Libya, the Imam has to protect the woman from the abuse of the relatives. And so he has to give her a chance to reject the marriage when no one is there to pressure her to do it. Because this is what happens in Islamic families.

Q. [Inaudible]

A. Right now there is a counter-coup going on in Libya. In Benghazi. There's all kinds of dramatic stuff that is happening.

Q. Hasn't Gaddafi been a pretty good ally to the West in recent years?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Then why is NATO supporting the rebels if they are in favor of sharia? I don't understand why NATO's supporting them.

Image

A. It is very interesting. Gaddafi has -- Libyan oil costs $1 per barrel to produce. And the United States had preferential contracts already. The United States, France and Britain, all could take as much oil as they wanted. And most of the oil does not come to the United States. It does, however, go to Italy, and France, and Britain. So it's a major source of European oil. And yet, what Gaddafi was doing was, Gaddafi also has gold. And I think it's very interesting that we have this major financial crisis, and now we're attacking a country that has both oil and a huge private reserve of gold on its own land. And like 500 -- I would have to doublecheck this fact -- but it's like 500 tons of gold in its bank vaults.

Q. 143.

Image

A. 143. I stand corrected. 143 tons of gold, correct?

Q. Something like that.

A. Something like that. And we're trying to take their gold and their oil. And it's so dirty. It's a dirty fight.

Q. Why do these radical fundamentalists want to let us have the oil and the gold once they win?

A. Well, you know, you should be in Washington. That's the kind of thing that makes sense. But the Americans are choosing to believe they are going to have this sweetheart deal. And I am agreeing with you. I think that as soon as they get in, they are going to say, "you know [makes kiss off gesture] too bad."

And privately I get emails from some of these, because they know me. They know that I'm against the rebels. And I do get emails that are very nasty. They say, "Do you really think we'll sell out and give you our gold for free? Do you really think we're going to do that?" And I'm like, "Well, I think that Hillary Clinton thinks you're going to do it. And I think David Cameron in Britain thinks you're going to do it."

Image

And also, I do have documentation that Israel has promised -- I actually have an Israeli military document, okay, in Hebrew, that I've had translated. Okay, this is just what it says. This is a primary document. It says that Israel will provide financial support to the rebels in exchange for a military base in Libya, in the Green Mountains.

Image

And the military base will be called "One by One."

Image

And the Green Mountains are close to where the gold is! Which I find very interesting.

Q. Susan, I'm very interested in your constitution, and how you're dealing with all of this. I'm really impressed with all the interviews that I've heard, how you seem like a really grounded, confident, yet buoyant person, and hearing that you have a sense of humor and a sense of irony. I like to think I have that. But how do people go through what you've gone through? And people we know being called into grand jury, and put being put into detention -- what was it called?

A. The Communications Center Detention. That is a very scary --

Q. How can we be sure that people can still stand up and talk like you are talking today?

A. Well, I'll tell you. When I was locked up in Carswell, I cried every day.

Image

Not when I first went in. When I first went in, I was told it was going to be four months, and then I'd be released. And the first four months I was okay. Because I was like, "I'm going to get out of this. And boy am I going to have a story to tell. And they're not going to shut me up." But when they refused to release me, and I realized I was not going home, and at that point they dropped the bomb on me that they were trying to hold me indefinitely, and only when I thought I was going to be held indefinitely -- and then that continued for another eight months -- I became absolutely terrified out of my mind. And I began to have very serious post-traumatic stress.

Q. Well, you said you hadn't gone through depression before, and I was just wondering how --

Image

A. I went through deep anxiety. And it was like my blood pressure, the stress level, it was like a war. A constant war. I was so frightened. I actually [clearing her throat] color my hair, okay? My hair actually went white.

Image

It did. It went white.

Q. So you had contact with people you needed to have contact with?

Image

A. No. And I'll tell you something. I was locked in prison, and at that point I had a public attorney, who made no effort to get me out.

Image

And my uncle who, God bless his heart, lived in Illinois, was driving 700 miles. He was an attorney, though. He had 40 years of experience in corporate law So he was not a criminal attorney, but he was an outstanding attorney. He read up on my type of law. He studied what I needed to do to move out of this situation. And he made three efforts to see me.

Image

But because I was locked up in what they are now calling "A Communications Center" -- yeah, scary, scary people --

Image

and all the political prisoners, all the women political prisoners are being held in Carswell. So if any of you guys are ever arrested on the Patriot Act, you'll be seeing the inside of Carswell, too. But they don't have to let the attorneys onto the base. And so even though he was both family and an attorney, and he was coming on visiting hours -- he was showing up when other family members were allowed on the base. Like if you were in prison, you would be able to have your family members show up.

Image

He wasn't asking for any special privileges. We filled all the forms. It was all reported correctly. He would show up at the base, and they would say, "You're going to see that Iraqi agent. You are not coming into our base. No, there is no prison here." And then they said there were no visiting hours on the weekends.

Image

And other people were going right around him, and he was saying, "You can go in." "You can go in."

Image

"You are not going in."

And he drove 700 miles in each direction. And believe it or not, there's an affidavit from him in the back of my book.

Image

And so what I'm telling you is confirmed. It's like it sounds extraordinary, but it's confirmed.

But how did I keep my spirits up? I was terrorized. I was absolutely frightened out of my wits. And I'm just jubilant that it's over. I did have a wonderful, loving companion who died. He died two days after the court granted my request for a hearing. For four years we lived together, and he fought for me to have that hearing. And then as soon as we got it -- he had cancer at the end -- and as soon as he found out that we had the hearing, he died. He didn't even live 48 hours after that. And so then I had to have the hearing without him, and that was like very traumatic. But he always had this attitude that was really cool, which was, you know, he hated self-pity. And he wasn't going to tolerate it. And he's like, "You chose your values." And he had this attitude, he was like, "You choose your values, and when you believe in something, you have to be willing to pay the consequences, pay the price for your values. And you have to take your consequences." And he said, "If you really believe in what you did, then you should be proud of yourself.

Image

And don't let these people take this away from you." So that was his attitude.

Q. Just one last question. I'm just not familiar with the word "asset." And Robin asked that question, too. Can you just help me clarify what that is? Is that like a secretary?

Image

A. No, no. An asset is like an operative. It's like a field operative. A human asset is the eyes and ears that goes into the situation, "into the room," and has direct contact with events. So that's why assets are trained, we are trained to be very observant of the full situation, and to be very descriptive of what we are doing. And we're trained not to change what we've seen for any reason. And that was a real threat to the Bush administration, because you don't ever change your story. Because the detail that you think is small, that you think you might compromise, could turn out to be very important ...

Image

because you are compartmentalized.

Image

And you're like seeing a picture of this, and they need to know what this is. They need to see what you see right here.

Image

Even if you don't know what's over there, or what's over there.

Image

They have to know that this here that you're reporting, is as accurate and precise as possible.

Image

With the exception in this situation that the Libyans and the Iraqis both knew who I was from the first day that we went in. And the reason that the Libyans knew immediately -- once I told the Libyans it was over; I mean, you can't ever take it back -- and that was that my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, was involved in the Lockerbie case, and he wanted to be a witness testifying in the Lockerbie case. And so before I ever went to the Iraqis, we started talks for the Lockerbie trial with Libya. And we wanted the Libyans to know that if they would accept the trial, that his testimony would help exonerate their people. So then I had to tell them who I was. And so they knew.

Lockerbie Trial Document: Susan Lindauer Deposition
4 December 1998

Last month, MEIB reported that Dr. Richard Fuisz, a major CIA operative in Syria during the 1980s, met with a congressional staffer by the name of Susan Lindauer in 1994 and told her that that the perpetrators of the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland were based in Syria [see "The Lockerbie Bombing Trial: Is Libya Being Framed?" Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, June 2000]. One month after their meeting, the Clinton administration, which holds Libya responsible for the bombing, placed a gag order on Dr. Fuisz to prevent him from publicly discussing the issue.

While Dr. Fuisz is still unable to comment on this matter because of the gag order, MEIB has obtained a copy of a formal deposition filed by Lindauer in 1998 in which she recounts this conversation in detail. This deposition (see below) has been submitted to the court in which two Libyan suspects are currently on trial and to U.N. officials, who have attempted to persuade the Clinton administration to lift the gag order on Dr. Fuisz.

Lindauer says that she has been subject to intense surveillance, threats, and attacks since she began meeting with Libyan officials in 1995 to discuss her knowledge of the Lockerbie bombing. "Someone put acid on the steering wheel of my car on a day I was supposed to drive to NYC for a meeting at the Libya House. I scrubbed my hands with a toilet brush, but my face was burned so badly that 3 weeks later friends worried I might be badly scarred," Lindauer told MEIB. "Also, my house was bugged with listening devices and cameras -- little red laser lights in the shower vent. And I survived several assassination attempts."

She has agreed to publish her email address, slndau@aol.com, along with this deposition so that journalists, researchers and others interested in learning more about this issue can contact her.

Text of Deposition

My name is Susan Lindauer. I reside in Silver Spring, Maryland, one of the suburbs outside the District of Columbia in the United States of America. At the time these events took place, I was living inside the District of Columbia, at 1002 C Street NE on Capitol Hill.

In offering this deposition, I hereby inform the court and all interested parties at the United Nations that I have never accepted any financial compensation from any of the individuals, or governments involved in this case, in any form of cash or non-cash payment. Furthermore, I have never solicited nor received promise of future payments in exchange for this testimony. My reasons for coming forward reflect my own deepest personal values, and my sense of obligation to the cause of international peace and security. I remain deeply persuaded that justice must never be confused with convenience or political scapegoating, and that the issues of this case, including the prosecution of terrorist activities and the imposition of sanctions that seek to isolate an entire Arabic population, are too important in this contemporary age for a lie to stand unchallenged. And so let it be understood by the court: I make these statements of my own free will, out of respect to my own conscience and sense of obligation as a world citizen.

This deposition pertains to my direct and immediate knowledge of an American named Dr. Richard Fuisz, and unequivocal statements by Dr. Fuisz directly to me that he has first hand knowledge about the Lockerbie case. Dr. Fuisz has told me that he can identify who orchestrated and executed the bombing. Dr. Fuisz has said that he can confirm absolutely that no Libyan national was involved in planning or executing the bombing of Pan Am 103, either in any technical or advisory capacity whatsoever. He has also made direct statements to me describing harassment that he has suffered for trying to provide this information to the families of Pan Am 103 and prosecuting authorities in the United States government.

I first met Dr. Richard Fuisz in his business office in Chantilly, Virginia in the United States of America. The date was September,1994. I had been invited to meet Dr. Fuisz by a mutual acquaintance because of my position as press secretary to former Congressman Ron Wyden (a Democrat from Oregon), and because of my known longstanding interest in the Middle East. Wyden is now a United States Senator, and I have continued my career in TV journalism and public affairs. For the record, my relationship with Dr. Fuisz has remained purely professional, and based strictly on my respect for his integrity and incredible, indepth knowledge of the Middle East.

Dr. Fuisz told me in September, 1994 that he had lived in Syria during the 1980s, and that he maintained close ties to Saudi Arabia and the Middle East overall. Mutual friends and associates have confirmed this. He was vague as to what capacity he was working, but after our conversation, I concluded by myself that he must have been feeding U.S. intelligence efforts. He told me that he had infiltrated a network of Syrian terrorists tied to the Iranian Hezbollah, who, at the time of his residence in Damascus, were holding Americans hostage in Beirut. Dr. Fuisz impressed on me that he had identified the organizers behind the hostage crisis, and that he had actually located the streets and buildings where those Americans were being held captive, at tremendous personal risk, in order to try to orchestrate a rescue. This information was later confirmed by a third party source.

We talked a great deal about how the sale of heroin/opium from the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon is financing terrorist activities on a global scale. I must add, the rise of heroin in street markets all over the U.S. is a most insidious trend with enormous human costs, which has further motivated my determination to stay involved in this question of Pan Am 103. (The bombing of Pan Am 103 was intended to strike drug enforcement agents of the United States, in reprisal for their aggressive efforts.)

As further evidence of his deep infiltration of terrorist circles, occasionally Dr. Fuisz pointed to photographs on his wall that showed individuals engaged in social activities at private homes. He said they were some of the "most famous terrorists in the Middle East," to use his words. Obliquely he told me they might be household names in the United States.

Dr. Fuisz asked for my help as a congressional staffer because he said he had a problem. After testifying before a congressional committee about an American company that supplied Iraq with SCUD mobile missile launchers, he complained of being seriously harassed in lawsuits and by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Efforts by his attorneys to stop this harassment had been answered with warnings from the highest levels that he should never have talked about U.S. arms supplies to Iraq, and that he should stop trying to contact families tied to Pan Am 103.

In fact, this was the context for how the Pan Am bombing came up in our conversation. He said to me, gosh, [note to MEIB: he used much stronger language and profanities that I did not think would be appropriate for a deposition] I could be providing so much more information about Middle Eastern terrorists, except the United States government doesn't want anybody talking about Syria. Then he jumped into the Lockerbie case by way of example of unsolved bombing cases that he said has the immediate capability to resolve. He complained that he was getting shafted for trying to assist a cause that American leaders profess to care very much about. In essence, he insisted the messenger was getting shot for delivering the message.

Dr. Fuisz made it very clear that he knows a great deal of insider knowledge about this case. Because of his Syrian ties, he told me he "was first on the ground in the investigation," to use his words. At one point, I said to him, "Oh yeah, everybody knows Syria did it, and the U.S. repaid them for supporting us during the Iraqi War by shifting the blame to Libya."

Immediately he cut me off.

"Susan ­ Do you understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary source? Those people in Virginia are analysts. They're reading reports from the field, but they don't have first-hand contact with events as they're happening on the ground. Or first hand knowledge about what's taking place. So they don't actually know it, even if they think they do."

"I know it, Susan. I know it. That's the difference. Because of my Syria contacts, I was the first on the ground in the investigation. I was there. They're reading my reports." (His emphasis. Then he laughed sarcastically.) "In this case, they're reading them and destroying them." (And he threw up his hands.)

He continued on:

"Susan, if the (United States) government would let me, I could identify the men behind this attack today. I could do it right now. You want a police line up? I could go into any crowded restaurant of 200 people, and pick out these men."

"I can identify them by face, by name." He started gesticulating, and counting off on his fingers. "I can tell you the address where they work, and what time they arrive at their office in the morning. I can tell you what time they go to lunch, what kind of restaurants they go to, and what time they leave their offices to go home for the day. I can tell you their home addresses, the names of their wives if they're married, the names and ages of all their children. I can tell you about their girlfriends. I can even tell you what type of prostitutes they like."

"And you know what, Susan? You won't find this restaurant anywhere in Libya. No, you will only find this restaurant in Damascus. I didn't get that from any report, Susan." Dr. Fuisz started shaking his head. "I got it because I was investigating on the ground, and I know. Do you understand what I'm saying to you now? I know!"

To which I answered. "For God's sakes tell me, and I'll get my boss to protect you."

Then he got really mad. "No, no ­ It's so crazy. I'm not even allowed to tell you, and you're a congressional staffer." Then he repeated his story about the Terex lawsuit against both him and New York Times reporter Seymour Hirsch, (the famous Pulitzer Prize winner), whose only crime was reporting Dr. Fuisz testimony at the congressional hearing.

This was how I learned that Dr. Fuisz is covered by the Secrets Act, which severely restricts his ability to communicate information about Pan Am 103. Though he says freely that he knows first hand that Libya was not involved in any capacity whatsoever, it's my understanding that he can provide no further details regarding his part in the investigation, or details identifying the true criminals in this case.

This is tragic on two accounts. First, the accused Libyans are effectively denied the right to a fair trial where they might bring forth witnesses in their own defense, which could immediately exonerate them of all charges. And secondly, the families are denied the ability to close this terrible wound, and experience the healing that would be gained from discovering the complete truth and facts surrounding this case.

On both accounts, I cannot be silent. I suspect my disclosure will grieve the families with the horrible revelation that U.S. government officials have behaved so cynically and despicably as to withhold evidence in this case. And yet such a cynical and desperate act must be condemned by civilized society. I dare say Libya is entitled to financial compensation for the economic harassment her people have endured because of these blatantly false accusations, and the deliberate efforts to mislead potential judges, and victimize potential witnesses by a policy of aggressive harassment and punishment for speaking out. Meanwhile, the true culprits have literally gotten away with murder.

For shame on all of you!

This ends my deposition.

Signed this 4th Day of December, 1998 In the presence of a notary public.

(Lindauer's signature and the crest of the notary stamp)


Image

But I remember the first conversation I had with Mr. Amara at the Libyan embassy. He was like, "We want to know why you are here. This is a very important question. It requires a very important answer." And so he was like, "We want to know what the heck are you doing?" Because in 1995, when I established contact with the Libya House, people didn't just wander in to the Libya House. Believe me. And if I had not been an asset, the FBI would have arrested me the minute I came out of there. So they were told not to touch me.

Q. After you were locked up for a year, and then it was five years total that you weren't allowed to say anything?

A. Well, five years I was under indictment. So when you're under indictment, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. However, what they had done was very clever. Because when I was released from prison, the corporate media told everybody I was crazy.

Image

I had been declared "incompetent to stand trial." And so there must be something really wrong with me, so most people wouldn't listen to what I have to say anyway.

Q. So what happened in the next four years? And then did anybody say anything when you were starting to come out with this? And have you ever heard from anybody, and your Mr. Whatever his name is at the CIA again?

A. Well, very good questions. I was actually under indictment for 18 months before I got sent to prison. And then I was held for a year. So when I am released from prison, that's actually the halfway mark of my case. And then I found another attorney, and it took him about another eighteen months. Try to understand what I'm trying to say to you. Two and a half years I'm under indictment, and I'm released from prison. For another eighteen months the court refuses to grant me a hearing after I've been released from prison. Because I get another attorney, he says, "I can take her case. I can work with this woman. As far as I'm concerned, she is competent to help me assist in this defense. She is capable of assisting in her own defense, if I'm taking it." He went into court, he stood in front of the judge, he assured the judge that he could work with me. This was not going to be a problem. Because the reason anyone is declared incompetent is if they're not capable of helping their attorney in the case.

Q. What kind of court was it?

A. U.S. Federal Court, Southern District of New York. The first judge was Judge Michael Mukasey. He then retired, and a new judge took over: Loretta Preska.

Image

Her husband worked for Daddy Bush. There's a surprise.

Q. So after that, what happened until now?

A. So, we did have the hearing in June of 2008, right before the presidential election in November. And people like Michael Hertzog, at Oracle Broadcasting, and public broadcasting, the Internet radio was giving me a lot of attention. And they were helping to defend me.

Image

And when my witness testified in court about the 9/11 warnings, then it exploded out more. But like people who pay attention to the Internet do know this story. And then they began to talk about it a lot more. But then my case continued another year. And my CIA handler has said, I'm told he thinks it's really a shame what they did to me. He "feels sorry" for me.

Image

He does not feel sorry for what he did. But he says, "I'm very sorry that they screwed Susan."

Image

But he didn't give me any money for my legal defense.

Q. Did you hear anything from anybody about the book?

Image

A. Oh! When I do radio interviews, there are funny things that happen. Like my phone will cut out. Like I make sure I have my batteries charged, and all this stuff, and the phone will just drop dead. Drop out. And the battery will just disappear. Or, if they can't kill the phone calls, sometimes there will be like a loud beeping noise: "BEEP! BEEP! BEEP!"

Image

And all the way through like an hour interview without stop. It'll just continue all the way through.

Q. Has anyone directly come up and threatened your publisher?

A. Well, I have had to self-publish it. Because the corporate press, they're like "No one wants to hear about 9/11. No one wants to hear this." And then we were afraid, we did have some smaller publishers who were willing to take it, but we were very much afraid at that point that a smaller publisher would be threatened, and then they would close the book. And they'd stop it. And so I decided that the safest way to go forward would be to self-publish it, and hopefully, by the time you realize I have 700 footnotes, I've got the documents in here, I've got the affidavits in there, and now I'm safe because no one has sued me, no one has threatened to sue me, and so hopefully, in the future, if I write a second book, then hopefully they'll pick up this one and both of them will be distributed.

So, thank you.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17670
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Another View on 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron