...for those who might have missed this thread.

"Lindauer was found mentally unfit to stand trial in two separate hearings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer

Her claims to have worked for the CIA and DIA seem to be as delusional as her claim to have psychically predicted the 9/11 attack.

...you may be persuaded to her side of the story.

The main reason that she was twice judged to be mentally unfit to stand trial is that she appears to be living in an imaginary world, which is to say there's no evidence whatsoever backing up any of her claims.

...it's totally impossible that she was judged unfit for trial because the prosecution didn't want certain facts to emerge?

The question is, is there any reason to believe her claims? Not by the conventional definition of "reason."

I'd sure want to hear what a person has to say for him/her-self before summarily writing them off.

Also, allot can be determined about a person's credibility by observing their manner as well as hearing the content of what they put forward. A good observer of character can generally discern whether or not a person is believable.

She was charged under the Patriot Act, held for five years, and never brought to trial. That alone should make you perk up your ears and listen carefully.

For example, she was charged with acting as an unregistered foreign agent attempting to influence government action, which seemed to me to have been around a lot longer the Patriot Act, so I looked up her indictment: She was charged under Title 18, Section 951 of the US Code, which is not the Patriot Act. Claiming that it was the unpopular Patriot Act seems to be a deliberate attempt to gain undeserved sympathy for her claimed injustice.

She wasn't brought to trial because court-appointed psychiatrists found that she had a "long delusional history." The judge basically ruled that she lacked any credibility, which meant that it wouldn't have been possible for her to influence anyone as a foreign agent. And this, by the way, was all well before she started telling stories about the Israelis shooting a video of the first plane hit, which is what she claims Bush saw before going into that Florida classroom.

...it's not totally impossible that she was judged unfit for trial because the prosecution didn't want certain facts to emerge. So, on the off chance that she might be telling the truth, what's stopping you from watching the video?

If the prosecution didn't want "certain facts to emerge," then they wouldn't have indicted her in the first place, or they would have just dropped the case when they reached that decision. But it was the judge who found her mentally unfit, based on examination by psychiatrists, so you need to drag the psychiatrists and the judge into your conspiracy theory. Anyway, she wasn't telling wild tales about 9/11 conspiracies back then -- that came later.

I watched about 10 minutes of the video and just didn't see any good reason to watch any more. She does strike me as being mentally ill, but whether or not she is, the point remains that there is not a single good reason to believe her 9/11 story.

Yes they would have indicted her, if they wanted her put away where she would not be able to tell their story. The longer they could keep her locked up without charging her, the better. The psychiatrists that the court believed were government psychiatrists.

It's an "ad hoc fallacy" or "special pleading" explanation for events that just attempts to rationalize away the doubts about your conclusion. How would indicting her prevent her from telling her story? Do you imagine that she wasn't allowed any contact while she was held? How does eventually dropping the charges help with your claimed objective of keeping her quiet? Are you aware that she wasn't telling the psychiatrists any wild stories about 9/11 but she was telling them she was an angel with psychic powers? What "story" exactly do you think the government was trying to prevent her from telling?

If you've got a logical argument here, I'd love to hear it.

That is how! She couldn't go on talk shows or television. There may be goverment psychiatrists who would say anything, I have no idea. All I know is that they were not neutral psychiatrists.

Eventually a part of the story got out anyway, or haven't you heard?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=3smid=tw-share&

She was a big witness that the government had advance warning for 9/11, and that it was used as a pretext for war in Iraq. That may be known by all of us now, but this was a big deal a few years ago, plus she had details.

Read this article from 2004: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/magazine/susan-lindauer-s-mission-to-baghdad.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Three things to note: 1) She was out on bail and talking to a reporter, not locked away; 2) at that time, she was not telling wild stories about 9/11 conspiracies or even advance knowledge; and 3) at that time, she wasn't even claiming to have been a CIA asset -- all of that came later. I'm sure you can come up with another "just so" story to explain all that, but since it's extremely difficult to believe that the CIA would ever use such an obviously disturbed person as an asset, and since there's no evidence whatsoever that they did, there is no reason to believe that "she was a big witness that the government had advance warning for 9/11." I also have my doubts that she is a psychic angel.

... claiming to be a CIA "asset" -- an employed agent. If she was working for the CIA, she would have had a boss or a handler, not a "contact." That "asset" claim and calling Fuisz her boss were added to her later stories about having advance knowledge of the 9/11 attack and Fuisz seeing an Israeli-made video of the first plane hit. At the time of that article, she was only claiming to have been a "back channel" between the Bush administration and Iraq, not a CIA asset.

and you do realize there is absolutely no evidence she was CIA?

It appears that she had contacts with someone purported to be CIA. I have no idea if her story is true or not. But why did they charge her? I have no idea. Whether nuts or not, she was passionately anti-war, and may have been telling everyone the reasons for the Iraq War were manufactured. She was a loose cannon.................. In those days, we actually didn't KNOW the evidence was manufactured, like we do now, so they did now want people spreading that around. She definitely had ties to the Iraqis, so she probably had tales to tell and was telling them.

Just a guess but she probably did have ties to the CIA but was not being paid for it. She probably provided some info that was anit-war in nature. She was probably charged because she could not be trusted and was starting to talk. Back then the media was all into believing the weapons of mass distruction theory and TPTB did not want to disturb that meme.

definitely bookmarking this.