Talk:Susan Lindauer

''See also Deletion review/Log/2014 September 18

The main fix is to tell this in terms of her efforts to do back-channel negotiation, rather than as a trial for it
The New York Times reference covers a succession of specific things she did in an effort to facilitate peace. I think we need to remix this article to focus on the individual things that she did, with the criminal case being just one of these events.


 * To start with, the large "2000s" section of Richard Fuisz contains a great deal of relevant data. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, "Fixing" (if thats even possible_ will not involve focusing on her version, it will involve focusing on what the reliable sources have focused on. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Diplomatic activities
, I'm a bit concerned about the title and some of the content of this section. From my recollection, the sources indicate that Lindauer was not a diplomat, despite her claims otherwise. The sources also state that her colleagues said she was erratic. Both the prosecution and her defense attorneys and mental health professionals said she suffered from delusions of grandeur, amongst other things. The sources state this hand in hand with the "secret agent" claims. We shouldn't be perpetuating that these activities were real, unless the sources indicate they are as such. In fact (also my recollection) the sources indicate her seemingly erratic behavior and claims were a symptom of her medical condition. Its hard to tiptoe around some of this because of BLP concerns. I mean we can't outright call someone crazy, but nearly every strong source such as the WaPost or NYT leave you with that impression. Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, calling the section "diplomatic activities" is clearly an endorsement of her totally unsuported claims. Mezigue (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, the current version says that "Though Lindauer was a liberal, Hoven challenged her to take a more active role, giving her the nickname "Snowflake" and introducing her to an informal circle of conservatives interested in counterterrorism".  What he actually said he that he called her Snowflake "because she's from Alaska and she's nuts" and she says that he made fun of her for deluding herself she was making a difference.  This might have encouraged her to do stuff, but it is clear that he was not deliberately encouraging her, but rather making fun of her. The piece also does not say that he introduced her to these people.  It is not clear who did. Mezigue (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The New York Times said the meeting happened, not that she said it happened. The people she met with said that they met with her.  I tried not to get bogged down in the subjective statements; it is clear enough from the text she was called upon to be "active, not passive" and that meeting these people was presented as a way to do it. Wnt (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The only true telling of Lidauer's story include's tidbits like the one mentioned.  I also recall reading about agent Snowflake and decided to leave the whole part out because the sources clearly indicated she was  unstable.  I did not, and still don't think it is appropriate to list the stuff she did, and here are they people that thought she was crazy.  At the same time, we definitely shouldn't list the stuff she did and imply that they were serious endeavors to anyone but Lindauer.  Either we should tell everything, or nothing.  But the current state of things in this section is 180 degrees different than what the sources state.  I'm tempted to remove the whole thing until we come up with a compromise.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 13:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be raising a huge objection over a very small issue, namely why "Snowflake" was chosen as a name. My own inclination actually is to tell everything, but usually the hassle with this kind of article is getting stuff like that past WP:BLP, and one guy saying, well after the fact, that he regarded someone as nuts is exactly the sort of thing that, 90% of the time, is what gets people threatening to delete the section.  I want to stick with facts, clearly identifying who the source was for each, putting the greatest emphasis on those where multiple parties agree, and those that news sources report in their own voice, and the least emphasis on details that one person self-reports with no one confirming it (like the reason for "Snowflake") - with an exception, per the sort of sympathy urged in the BLP policy, that statements by Lindauer about herself deserve more weight. Wnt (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I should add that I do want to have a section dealing explicitly with her sanity; this presently is in the middle of the old arrest section, and I've done nothing yet to elaborate it, but certainly it will be a major component of the article given events. Wnt (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm more opposed to presenting to the reader as verifiable fact that anything Lindauer did as agent, diplomat, etc was in any way taken seriously by anyone. Once again, the primary reason I excised a lot of these activities (I'd have to look at the history) is because in light of the sourcing that Lindauer was unwell that all of this was not necessary.  To your point about adding a "sanity" section, well that might help alleviate some of my concerns, but I'm also afraid others won't let you add this.  I forgot who addressed this and where (possibly BLPN?) but they stated in no uncertain terms that we as editors, nor are people discussed in sources are allowed to comment on the mental health of a BLP subject.  Would you mind temporarily removing this section and add it to the talk page so it can be discussed in further detail?Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 17:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I would mind! What you're describing is unacceptable "original research" or just plain bias, guessing that because (you think) she had a psychiatric issue in 2005 that she couldn't have been a productive citizen in 1995, despite her having worked for multiple Congresspeople.  I should add that the main evidence I've seen for her having psychiatric issues is a) she claimed to have intelligence contacts -- which reliable sources attest actually was true! and b) she claimed to have predicted the September 11th attacks -- which puts her in company with the WTC security head, the makers of The Lone Gunmen, and quite a number of other people around the country.  And as for her actions not being taken seriously... she spent a year in jail because somebody took her actions very seriously indeed.  This isn't some novel you can write how you think makes sense, we should say what the sources say and not judge it. Wnt (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as for a sanity section, the article already discusses her mental health in some detail, so I don't see how there's a prohibition against it. It's more a matter of trying to integrate the various sources into a more complete and self-contained analysis.  I should note that, despite my beliefs as expressed above, I don't plan to exclude the opposite point of view, which indeed seems to be the predominant position. Wnt (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The activities you've listed all fall within the period of reported instability. As a hypothetical,if one reported their interactions with ET, as reported by reliable sources and also failed to mention they were tripping balls on mushrooms, well you get the picture. I'll leave this in your capable hands for now and not try to distract you. I'll check your progress in a couple of days. Have a great weekend. Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 18:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, purely as a hypothetical, I think you should consider the case of Frank Olson. For a generation, people were told that taking LSD would make you go nuts and jump out a window, because the CIA said they dosed Olson with LSD and he jumped out a window.  Reportedly, MK-ULTRA just did this to agents now and then for fun, then let them wander around town babbling their secrets; in Olson's case, the proof of his insanity was that he said that the Army germ warfare program was doing terrible things and he wanted to get out of it.  His wife dutifully reported him posthaste to the CIA, and from a hotel room with some agents he was left alone and suddenly got the urge to jump.  Funny thing is, for someone who landed on his feet he sure had a lot of injuries to his head and chest.  Anyway, on behalf of the crazy people in the room, I would say that we should not limit ourselves to one scenario when we decide what facts to report.  Hypothetically, Lindauer could have had some psychiatric problem all along.  Or, she could have been perfectly sane in the mid-90s despite being willing to work for members of Congress, then suffered some late-onset condition.  Or, someone might have painted her as insane, perhaps even influencing some doctor(s), to keep her locked up, or keep her from being locked up, or to discredit her.  For that matter, I wouldn't even exclude the potential that someone dosed her with a neurotoxin to neutralize her.  But we have no evidence that I know of for any of these scenarios, and by any I'm including scenario #1 that you seem to believe in.  So let's write down what data is published, get it organized and sorted out, let someone else guess what really happened. Wnt (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a single reliable third-party source that says she was ever a diplomat or that verifies any of her claims. Period full stop. This was talked to death on the last article that was deleted after much discussion. This is really beginning to look like a vanity page to promote a book. SpringandFall (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best phrase to use would be "antiwar activist" instead of "diplomat", she never had diplomatic status, and I don't think we should call that a "citizen diplomat". We call bloggers ... "bloggers" not "citizen journalists". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I can try that a while. Though it seems underpowered ... I think of antiwar activism as, you know, holding signs and walking around a building, not taking information and proposals back and forth to diplomats.  But it's not very important of a difference to me. Wnt (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer was never a diplomat
The above discussion reflects a misunderstanding of what a diplomat is. A diplomat is either someone who works for a government, or for an inter-governmental organization. Susan Lindauer never worked for the State Department, Susan Lindauer never worked for the UN. So Susan Lindauer was never a diplomat - ever.

According to her claims, Lindauer was an asset, or agent (also known as a 'spy') for the United States - paid-for by a man (Fuisz) who was allegedly a CIA officer. It was in that context that Susan Lindauer visited the Iraqi Mission to the UN in New York (noted: not the Embassy in Washington). That doesn't make her a diplomat. She was conducted (allegedly) negotiations "behind the scenes" on behalf of the United States, allegedly (she says) and this is something Fuisz has never denied.

Apart from this, after 9/11, Lindaeur decided, on her own volition, to initiate contact with the Iraqi government, using her contacts made as a spy (for the United States). It was in this context that she wound-up talking to an FBI undercover officer, who served as part of the case against her. She also traveled to Iraq around this time (2002) for unspecified reasons, and stayed in the Al Rachid Hotel. It's never clear why she did this, or what her objective was, nor is it clear that she took this trip under U.S. government approved auspices - as a back-channel - but it would appear that this was her own personal project. Allegedly she also wanted to open a case against the United States administration for violations of international law.


 * Where she made a mistake, legally speaking, was not registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, after she decided to branch-out on her own. Other possible mistake (for which there was no legal cover) was that Lindauer (allegedy) accepted some (very small) payments for her travels from the Iraqi government, when sanctions were still in place.  If she did this, she violated the Iraqi sanctions, and this would explain why she was under a financial sanctions law that fell under the Patriot Act.  Hence her placement under U.S. terror-laws, at which point her case fell-under the Patriot Act.


 * Lindauer is intelligent and well educated. She also has a huge ego, can be extremely abrasive and (probably from the government's point of view) overstepped her bounds. From the government's point of view, she was working for them, and she tried to use her contacts (from working for them) for working against U.S. policy, and they came-back at her with 'all they could'.  She was called insane, and put in very embarrassing positions, and paraded before the press.  This is how the DOJ operates; it's not fair, they don't afford many people a fair trial, and her case was especially egregious, in terms of abuse of due process.


 * Alternatively, she was playing with fire.


 * Lindauer was working for the CIA and DIA (if you believe her story which I do) then she tried to use her own personal contacts to turn the tables on them. It was terrible what happened to her, but she was exercising some fairly provoking behavior, and wasn't being particularly careful about it.  She wasn't allowed to do that for a reason; her testimony would have revealed U.S. national security information, which had had nothing to do with her personal activities, done after she had worked as a back-channel - in fact she was (from the government's point of view) abusing access they'd given her, to subvert their objectives.  Is that a whistleblower?  That's a philosophical discussion.  Some people would call that a traitor.  Some not.

But Lindauer is NOT (was NEVER) a diplomat. NO way. Diplomats represent governments, or intergovernmental organizations (like the UN or WTO). Lindauer was an asset and an agent (a hired lackey for the U.S. spy services), and she 'bugged-out' of that role, started her own brand of whistleblowing (which involved contacting foreign governments) which technically is spying; she also contacted Congress (which the U.S. administration has a history of treating as spying), i.e. she changed her position and the U.S. government slapped her down. Is that a whistleblower? That's a philosophical discussion. The US DOJ considers is spying (but they consider a lot of things spying, including bona fide whisteblowing - see case of Thomas Drake).

But Lindauer was never a diplomat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QualityFeet (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Official site(s)?
It seems that Lindauer continues to publish at various sites, but there's the problem that they're so informal I worry I can't be totally sure some don't just use her name. While trying to collect my thoughts:


 * http://www.sott.net/article/230514-The-Ugly-Truth-video-Of-Libyan-rebel-beheading-Gadhaffi-soldier-and-other-Nato-war-crimes (seems interesting, dead links but eventually I found the original at:)
 * http://www.federaljack.com/index.php?s=lindauer e.g. http://www.federaljack.com/the-ugly-truth-libyan-rebel-beheads-gadhaffi-soldier-and-other-war-crimes/
 * http://truthfrequencyradio.com/covertreport/ (?? this didn't seem like her writing style at all, but seems confirmable via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJzrcC32lBQ if you can recognize her voice from somewhere else)

At some point we should get this stuff up if we're sure of it, as obviously useful to round out the biography; I'm just wary I'm going to get fouled up somehow. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Also http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php?s=Susan+Lindauer&sentence=sentence&submit=Search. (*Though what's weird about this one is that although other sites treat it as Lindauer's site, and she's listed as a writer, the page nonetheless carries a "fair use notice" at the bottom)

And http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-s-war-for-the-abaya-women-s-rights-and-nato-s-support-of-pro-islamist-rebels/25806 Wnt (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't so much that these websites are "informal," so much as they are pretty shady and have reputations for, at best serious levels of reality-warping and conspiracy mongering, and, at worst all out anti-semitism (e.g., 911 was a Jewish conspiracy, etc.; see reports by Southern Poverty Law Center). These are *not* legitimate sources for news and research. Truth Frequency Radio, Global Research, and Veterans Today are especially notorious. 2601:6:3A00:AD3:81:6D43:65F5:817E (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Erratic behavior
By all accounts, her behavior has at times been described as "erratic". This comes from her colleagues,family,friends not to mention participants in the legal proceedings. I think stating this would paint a clearer picture, but that's just this swine's personal opinion. I raised this issue at BLP/N a while ago, but was unable to get any traction for this. Now that we have a few more editors involved, I'd like to revisit the topic.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 05:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's important for Wikipedia to avoid getting bogged down in more and more layers of abstraction. Sure, you've managed to find a few individual people, interviewed after she's essentially been accused of working with an enemy in a time of war, using a few different terms to describe her like "had her own way of doing things", but do they mean the same thing?  What do they mean?  The situation is similar to what we face on Wikipedia when a news source headlines, say, a Syrian as a "terrorist".  Rather than have a big argument about whether he is terrorist or freedom fighter, we should try to get down the facts, i.e. he sniped at troops at a government checkpoint and was put on a couple of different named lists.  I'm not saying that we must suppress words like "erratic", but if used we should file them properly in the mouths of one or two people saying them, as their interpretation alone, not put it in Wikipedia's voice.


 * Now you have collected a fair range of sources:  Sources are good, and some of the specific incidents mentioned might be intriguing in detail, if only we could get a little more about them.  I especially like the one  where a merchant apparently known as "Magick" among other things filed for (apparently didn't get?) an anti-harassment order (whatever that is) because she called her up and apparently challenged her to cast spells on the Herald.  But to me that sounds like Penn&Teller, not legal insanity.  If any of those people, even the few at the Herald that multiple sources are quoting, had really thought she was legally insane as you seem to imply at the BLPN, wouldn't they have changed the locks on their doors and told her to lose their number?


 * I think the more effective way to get a sense of her state of mind is to link her ongoing publications as I suggested in the section above. If this is her then, sure, I can see how people can have a range of things to say about her; some will be unkind, some diplomatic, and some will find she has important things to say.  It makes little difference, and serves little use, how we try to classify her personality, because the range of personalities within any personality type is not merely infinite, but of infinite dimension. Wnt (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've never made a case that she was insane, using any definition of the word. What I have said that there are multiple, high quality RS that have seen fit to publish character references from those who knew her best. Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 16:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * man-on-the-street psychological profiles of living people are not acceptable. assembling a bunch of anecdotes to create a such a profile is also unacceptable -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is the synthesis? As to your first point, this isn't Jay Leno and that's your opinion based on no policy whosoever.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the happy thing is, I think at this point we've all agreed to separate consideration of her personality traits as described from these sources from any consideration of her competence to stand trial. It's not evidence of anything psychological, and it is background color.  Some of these statements being well attested by RSes, we can cite them, being careful to say who said what.  But we must be careful not to have the tail without the dog here.  If we want to say that someone at the Herald said she was erratic, we have to be covering her time at the Herald with more than a third of a sentence; we should, ideally, give a good sense of the range of topics she covered, link to articles with her byline, give a sense of what it was like for her to go work there and under what circumstances she left, etc. Wnt (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any policy that states why we would have to cover her work at the Herald, especially if there is no coverage.  If there is coverage, then yes, let's give it the proper weight it deserves.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 01:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The coverage consists of a news article. There were quite a few similar news articles which interviewed past colleagues and neighbors, and they report similar findings. The question for me is, should Wikipedia enumerate all of these things, or is it sufficient to simply quote Judge Mukesy who stated in his decision that she had a "lengthy psychiatric history" and leave it at that? A colleague or neighbor could say anything; a judge in writing a decision can't. SpringandFall (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Charged Under the Patriot Act?
How exactly is one "charged under the Patriot Act"? The chief feature of the Patriot Act is that it expands the rights of law enforcement officials to investigate potential terror suspects, but it is not a set of new laws unless under which one can be charged. The charges Lindauer faced were all commonplace pre-911 statutes, and I see no independent evidence that there was any Patriot Act component to the investigation or the prosecution (which was suspended completely once her competency to stand trial came under question). Furthermore, the only reference we have is fairly dubious. There is no journalism or objectivity in this source-- it is just an interview in which Lindauer makes some fairly incoherent claims. I think this should either be strongly substantiated with credible sources or deleted.SpringandFall (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you file this at RSN? The source for this and many other items warrants deeper examination. Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 01:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Enlighten me: what is RSN? And yes, I think a lot of the stuff people are tucking into this article is pretty dubious. I would like to see reliable third-party sources. SpringandFall (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's sort of like this talk page, but you ask if a specific source is considered reliable to make a certain claim. Read more here.  I would start by asking if that source that interviewed Lindaeur is something we should use.  Personally, I think it is highly dubious.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 03:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the article doesn't say she was charged under the Patriot Act. The article, as of this datestamp, says the subject claims she was charged under the Act. I've seen and read several interviews, some linked on the page, which back the fact that she asserts this; whether the assertion proves inaccurate isn't relevant to the statement of her assertion. It is demonstrably true that she claims she was so charged. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, questionable sources, such as online interviews of the subject, can be used in a page so long as they meet certain criteria. I'd encourage User:SpringandFall to check out what WP:RS/N has to say. I suspect a lot will turn on what editors at RSN believe meets exceptional claim, as I suspect this does. For my part, if a notable subject verifiably claimed the moon was made of green cheese, and had made the claim in many venues (including her own book on her experiences), I'd want to include even such a dubious claim in order to maintain accuracy about the subject. In this case, removing the claim would have the effect of misrepresenting the subject's overall assertion, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see your point! Thank you! Well with that in mind, Lindauer also claims-- and vigorously and frequently-- that she is psychic, has special powers of precognition, and that her valuable knowledge which she has used in her work with the CIA is psychic in origin. During her second competency hearing, she claimed that she specifically had psychic knowledge that 911 was going to happen and described it as "prophecy," for example. Should we also include that? I think we should. If not, maybe someone could point out in the article that her claim about the Patriot Act doesn't actually make a lot of legal sense and isn't supported by any facts. SpringandFall (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

She wasn't 'charged under the Patriot Act'
Lindauer wasn't charged under the Patriot Act. She states this over and over, and it's factually incorrect.

What I'm not clear about is whether she is using those words with ignorance, or if she's specifically distorting the truth.

In fact: Lindauer was charged with violating sanctions and of violating U.S. terrorism laws: She was indicted under the IEEPA (a post 9/11 terror-law), also of violating financial sanctions (Title 18 Section 2332d) related to terrorism laws, and of spying (technically the term used was "acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign power"), which is a term used against spies. All three of those laws fell under Patriot Act auspices, which meant that secret evidence could be used, secret grand jury testimony could be shared, that her lawyer could be (functionally) recruited, and more-or-less the woman hadn't a prayer of proper due process.

It is more accurate to say Lindauer was charged under terrorism laws. And she she says says she was "charged under the Patriot Act" that's a distortion. Patriot Act provisions applied to Lindauer because she was charged under the IEEPA and Title 18 Section 2332d, both of which are terrorism laws. She was also basically accused of spying, which doesn't mean she was working for a foreign government, it means the government felt she was being seditioius.

The laws used against her were draconian, but she was a former spy, and was turning tables on a very strident administration. To avoid having to address the merits of these charges (which would have the the U.S. government in the position of having to discuss her prior work as an asset) the government called her insane, got her public defender to sign-up to a mental incompetence defense, she was incarcerated for a year, at which point the Department of Justice began a campaign to drug her into silence.

There is a law on the books that allows for persons to be held under national security cases for up to a year, without trial. I've read it in the DOJ Bureau of Prisons manual. It's really shocking. QualityFeet (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Here it is:
 * (c) Initial placement of an inmate in administrative detention and/or any limitation of the inmate's privileges in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section may be imposed for a period of time as determined by the Director, Bureau of Prisons, up to one year. Special restrictions imposed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section may be extended thereafter by the Director, Bureau of Prisons, in increments not to exceed one year, but only if the Attorney General receives from the head of a member agency of the United States intelligence community an additional written certification that, based on the information available to the agency, there is a danger that the inmate will disclose classified information and that the unauthorized disclosure of such information would pose a threat to the national security. The authority of the Director under this paragraph may not be delegated below the level of Acting Director.
 * That's one of several ways that Lindauer could be held without trial for a year. She also could have been held under military law, in light of the fact that IEEPA was used.  IEEPA was a preliminary version of the  NDAA.

Hackers are often charted under U.S. terrorism laws, as the Patriot Act incorporated elements of the Computer fraud and abuse act (CFAA). Back in 2004, when Lindauer was arrested this kind of use of terror-law wasn't well known, i.e. terror law abuses were mostly viewed as racially motivated towards muslims. In fact, terror-laws are used for all-kinds of things (against animal rights activists, for example), so terror-laws are applied to many people who aren't actually terrorists.

I repeat: When Lindauer says she was "charged under the Patriot Act" that's false. What I'm not clear about is whether she is using those words with ignorance, or if she's specifically distorting the truth.

Possibly Lindauer doesn't want to state she was charged under terrorism laws (IEEPA and Section 2332d) - and she was charged under terrorism laws. In other words: the Patriot Act affected her case, but she wasn't charged with 'violating' it. It would be more accurate to state that Lindauer was indicted (and later charged) under laws which invoke provisions of the Patriot Act.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by QualityFeet (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Defamation
All the discussion of her mental health was a DOJ strategy to prevent the fact that she was a documented national security case. She isn't the most genteel person in the world, and likes to 'puff herself up' quite a bit, and she chooses her words poorly, hence she made it easy for the DOJ to make these wrongful claims. QualityFeet (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Notable
Lindauer is notable. She had a one hour special about her on Iranian TV, and RT news uses her as a source for Middle East Affairs. She is not taken seriously by the U.S. media, but by now it's become more clear that the U.S. media has a very special relationship with the U.S. government, i.e. collusive.

Lindauer wrote a book, she appears on TV (even if only foreign TV), she's on blogs, on the radio, and she is a public speaker to 9/11 truth movement activists; she's notable - no question, and the page should stay-up.

The page should be amended, however, because it's been written in a very defamatory light. QualityFeet (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Fantasist?
There does not seem to be anything in this talk section to discredit Lindauer, everything points towards her being a CIA asset as she maintains. The LSE has long connections to the secret services community. Lindauer's indictment makes no sense nor does the dismissal due to inability to give testimony. She is clearly an intelligent woman. It would be good to explore whether she is a fantasist (or possibly bi-polar - which seems likely). She's certainly seems to have a good understanding on the subjects she talks on, which would explain CIA connections (and possible embarrassment). She also names many names! Have any of these been followed up. Explaining Lindauer may help explain some CIA's black ops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.21.123 (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Lindauer's weird claim of meeting Osama Bin Laden in 1986 in Paris
The most dodgy claim Lindauer makes isn't about 9/11, or even about working for the CIA (both of which have some ties to credibility). It's about her claim of meeting OBL in a Paris train station in 1986. This was before she (claims to) have met Hoven, or Fuisz (in 1993), and it was while she was going to graduate school in London. So why was she worried about terrorism in a Paris train station, when she was a student, before she had contact with all-these Washington people (that she met five years after graduate school)?

This makes no sense. It smacks of falsehood (or something else).

Beyond this, Osama Bin Laden was "U.S. friendly" in 1986 (and by-extension, he was "France-friendly"). OBL wasn't a terrorist against the U.S. (or France) that year, he was travelling around the U.S. lobbying for Congress to give the mujahadeen cash, that the Saudis doubled (funds-matching). For details on this read "Charlie Wilson's War" (or watch the movie starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts).

Beyond this, Osama Bin Laden was a millionaire, a spoiled-rich Saudi kid who grew-up and (as an adult) used his money (that he'd inherited) to support radical religious causes (the results of which everyone knows - are common knowledge.

But the point is that: Osama Bin Laden was not a guy who would (ever - normally) go in a train station (like Gare du Nord, Paris) and leave a suitcase with a b-mb in it. It's just not something someone in his position would do - even if he was aggressive, which at that point in history, he was not.

This begs the question: What the hell was Lindauer talking about?. Why was she interested in terrorism in 1986 (when she was a graduate student in London)? Why did she think she was standing next to a terrorist? Was she really? Did that really happen? And why did she presumed that was Osama Bin Laden?

To me, this seems to be the only clear (possible) delusion, or falsehood. Mostly because it makes no sense. QualityFeet (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Lindauer's other weird claim of predicting the 1993 WTC bombings
According to Lindauer, as stated this year, on her own radio show, she claims to have warned Tunisian diplomats about the 1993 WTC bombings in New York. That's weird.

Really weird, in fact. QualityFeet (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's like she's mixing-up her claims of psychic predictions with working as an undercover asset for the U.S. (i.e. being a spy) and then to top it off, she goes behind-the-back of the spy agencies she was working with.
 * This is a recipe for trouble. And it's why she's been labelled 'erratic'. She changes sides, and isn't reliable, and in the spy-world, that's a recipe for trouble.  QualityFeet (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussing the article, not the topic of the article please.  Mezigue (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. The same criticism could be levied at the people above who were discussing her lucidity, which is really defamatory - and unfair to her.

I think that what both the above (weird) claims boil down to is that Lindauer got into the terrorism field due to her claims that she could predict terrorist attacks, back in 1993, and in 1986. Basically, her court testimony was blocked (I think) partly because the US intelligence community would have had to admit that they took this seriously. Which maybe they did. But they didn't want to admit that in court, i.e. she was effectively putting them in the position of admitting that they sort-of agreed that she might have some special skills. So this wasn't only an issue of her betraying the US intelligence community. It wasn't only about 9/11. I was an issue of the U.S. intel admitting it was dabbling in working with people claiming to be psychic - which they apparently did with her (this being validated by third-party testimony). They wouldn't admit it. Understandably. And anyway - what was she thinking? Not, I guess. Did she really want to put her life (and freedom) on the line to testify about the validity of psychic phenomenon in a court of law? In the end, that's what this case is about, though the issue is masked. She was prosecuted for outing information about 9/11, but she discussed her self-perceived special gift of psychic powers and experiences with psychic phenomenon in her testimony, when it was is in fact irrelevant to the charges (also to what happened around 9/11 in general) and this laid her wide-open to attack - and attack the DOJ did. QualityFeet (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The other big-question she never answers is why she went to Baghdad in 2002. For what purpose?  To talk to imams? (which she does admit).  To conduct pre-war assessment?  Why?  To communicate it to whom?  Her cousin?  Richard Fuisz (to whom she no longer spoke?)  What was the point?  She may not have been a spy, but she was a fool.  The country was going to war, on poor premises, but it was still going to war.  If she had a burning desire to go to Iraq, she could have joined an aid organization, but being paid-for by a government is a really serious thing for a U.S. citizen. Richard Fuisz should have explained this to her, if she was working for him for seven years; I frankly question his motives.  It seems that he used her in the 1990s, to speak for him while gagged, and when she continued this behavior, he let her drop. QualityFeet (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Susan Lindauer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.adn.com/front/story/4841671p-4779085c.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/07/america/NA_GEN_US_Iraq_Spy_Case.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Significance? I see none really,
So what do we have here really? A fantasist from a prominent Republican family who went to all the right schools but could never hold down a job in the end and who made a poor impression all around. Accepted an invitation and quite likely money from Saddam Hussein of all people because it made her feel important. Got caught. Family hired a good lawyer who prevented her from going to trial using a twinkie defense. (How very very white, I might add. If she were a person of color, or from a less powerful family, she would be in Gitmo and it would barely make headlines.) Goes on to self-publish what appears to be a pretty incoherent self-aggrandizing memoir, and now here she is, working for Russia Today, a proven propaganda outlet for Vladimir Putin, and spending her days filling Facebook with fake news and right-wing propaganda. A spectacular bottom-feeder in every way-- but how is she important? Why is there a Wikipedia article about this sad sack and her downward spiral? I question the significance of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4A01:9291:159E:F8D0:5D7C:F7EA (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)