Court Rules For P-I Journalist-'Spy'
Five years after she came to the government's attention as a self-proclaimed if not delusionary foreign agent, Susan Lindauer has gotten a break. The former Seattle journalist, accused of spying for Iraq, cannot be forcibly drugged and compelled to take the stand in a government espionage case that may be overblown, a federal judge in New York ruled yesterday. An ex-Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter and former U.S. Senate and House aide, Lindauer, 44, is charged by the Justice Department with conspiring to act as a spy and being an unregistered Iraqi agent. One of the alleged overt acts was delivering a letter in 2003 to her second cousin, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, hoping he could persuade his boss, George W. Bush, not to launch a war against Iraq. U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey yesterday deemed that letter the "high water mark" of the case, suggesting the mentally ill Susan Lindauer is no Mata Hari.
As Seattle Weekly earlier reported, the letter mentioned in her March 2004 indictment was actually one of two she wrote to Card, the first coming two months after Sept. 11, 2001. In it, Lindauer made no secret about her activism or her emotional mission to aid Iraqi citizens and, if she was a spy, she was letting the White House in on the secret. She told Card she was working back channels of government and claimed she was meeting with officials at the Iraqi embassy - something prosecutors say she in fact did. She wrote about conversations with Iraqi diplomats and extended an olive branch on behalf of Hussein's government-in hopes, she said, of getting U.S. economic sanctions lifted against Baghdad. "I am truly praying, Andy," she stated, "that this correspondence will trigger some sort of response from you, so that this ugly quagmire in Iraq can begin to heal."
U.S. prosecutors allege the antiwar activist accepted $10,000 from Hussein's intelligence unit over five years and sought to support resistance groups after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. She insisted her efforts-principally, to get economic sanctions lifted against Iraq-were misunderstood. The bigger question, however, was always her sanity. She had a history of mood swings and paranoid fears, as noted by friends and former co-workers - raised in Alaska and a graduate of Smith College in Massachusetts, Linduaer went to work in 1987 as a reporter at the P-I, and in 1989 was an editorial writer at The Herald in Everett. She also worked as a writer and researcher at U.S. News & World Report and Fortune. People were watching her, she often said, although, as it turned out, federal agents in 2003 indeed had set up surveillance and tapped her phone.
Judge Mukasey last fall, however, ruled she in fact was psychotic and incompetent to stand trial. Prosecutors then moved to have antipsychotic drugs administered so she could be tried. The Associated Press reports that Mukasey yesterday agreed that Lindauer suffers from hallucinations, grandiose and persecutory delusions and mood disturbances dating as far back as age 7. But he found that the government's interest to compel the drug induction was "significantly weaker" to other cases and ruled that it "would be a denial of reality ... to find otherwise." Lindauer's New York attorney, Stanford Talkin, didn't necessarily find the ruling a victory and was unsure where the case goes next.
Update: On Friday, Sept. 8, Judge Mukasey released Lindauer, ruling the government no longer had legal grounds to retain her. See comment below from J.B. Fields, who lived in Lindauer's home.
6 comment(s)
Steph says:
\"Judge Mukasey last fall, however, ruled she in fact was psychotic and incompetent to stand trial. Prosecutors then moved to have antipsychotic drugs administered so she could be tried.\"
Forced medication is a Civil Liberty topic.
From the article:
\"The judge said it would be permissible to order drugs to be given to Lindauer if it could be shown that important government interests were at stake in the prosecution and that the drugs would be effective without serious side effects and would be in her best interests.\"
Government interests, and drugs would be effective without serious side effects\". There you go.
Every antipsychotic medication on the market has potentially fatal side effects, not to mention, possible paradoxical side effects, that could have made the situation even more explosive.
Psychiatric medications are not tried and true, nor do they work equally in all bodies, what works for one may be disasterous for another. It takes months, if not years, sometimes to find the correct medication for those who suffer from mental illness. Forcing the medication would not have been a quick fix.
Forcing one to take these medications (especially for Government interest) would be removing the person\'s Right to be medicated for an illness.
I find it alarming they even considered this attempt of forced medication, as should everyone in this country.
Posted On: Thursday, Sep. 7 2006 @ 12:11PM
Stephen says:
I agree, she should be locked up until she is not crazy anymore (just kidding). No one should be FORCED to take medications or drugs against their will, however, by the same token they should not be treated ANY different than a sane and competent person by the legal system. With certain rights come associated responsibility. When we are no longer responsible, we give up our rights.
Posted On: Thursday, Sep. 7 2006 @ 11:25PM
Steph says:
\"When we are no longer responsible, we give up our rights.\"--stephen
Sorry, but last I heard, you can even get a Degree while parked in Prison. You have more rights than you may think, and maybe you better you tune it to that.
Point is :
if the Government was going for this antipsychotic for a trial on her, they can do it to you too, and any one else.
Read up about mental illness, and find that the \"socially acceptable\" word depression, is part of that arena, and if there is a forced medication issue here, it can force any one who has ever been diagnosed with \"the basic\" blues....to be forcibly medicated as well.
When speaking about Civil Liberties, it is often based on \"where to draw the line\".
Point: IF the Governnment opens Pandora\'s Box to forced medication one time, it will do it again and again ,until it will filter down to where you and others will understand the gravity of that topic.
For instance, it could be as innocent as forced medication for agitated Alzheimer\'s patients. Does that surprise you? Make you think?
The same antipsychotics the Govt wanted to use in this trial, are the same ones given to calm down Alzheimer\'s patients, autistic kids, and other sub-groups of people not classified as mentally ill.
This is where the fine line is walked, when speaking of rights, I believe we are all equal in having them.
The last thing we want is the Government drugging society forcibly.
That could affect everyone reading this entry, in some way, and then you\'ll complain, and sing another tune.
Posted On: Friday, Sep. 8 2006 @ 12:14PM
J B. Fields says:
These are some good comments. Susan is now at home in Takoma Park. More than a little of her story is verifiable. What she did took a lot of chutzpah, right or wrong. She did not sit at home or at Starbucks pretending that civics are someone else\'s job.
Posted On: Saturday, Sep. 9 2006 @ 6:51PM
Pharmacy advisor says:
Don\'t think a side effect when you first start is going to be a permanent effect. I have one med I didn\'t sleep for more than 35 hours after two days of partial doses of it. WBR LeoP
Posted On: Friday, Mar. 23 2007 @ 5:52PM
Virtual Pharmacy says:
All medications have side effects. Even taking too many Naturopathic vitamins or drinking too much water results in death. WBR LeoP
Posted On: Monday, Mar. 26 2007 @ 3:33PM