EXTREME PREJUDICE:
THE TERRIFYING STORY OF
THE PATRIOT ACT & THE
COVER UPS OF 911 AND IRAQ
BY SUSAN LINDAUER
CHAPTER 33:
“OFF WITH
HER HEAD,
”
THE RED
QUEEN SAID
I won the battle and
carried the day with flying
colors. It was a tremendous
victory by any standard. I
had one morning in court.
But in that small window, I
proved my declarations had
been truthful from the first
days of my indictment.
Ah, but did I win the
decision? Did the Court
accept my competency?
On September 9, 2008,
lame duck President George
Bush nominated Judge
Loretta Preska to serve on
the 2nd Circuit Appellate
Court, a major promotion in
her career.
618
Apparently Judge
Preska had other ties to the
Bush family, as well. Her
husband’s law firm handled
Daddy Bush’s legal affairs.
And so, on September
15, 2008, Judge Preska
declared me incompetent to
stand trial for the second
time—six days after
receiving her appointment
to the higher court.
619
Neither my 9/11
warnings nor the accuracy
of my Pre-War Intelligence
mattered a single iota.
Assurances from O’Meara
that my relationship with
Hoven and his intelligence
background were fully
authentic made no
difference. Godfrey’s
testimony that he observed
no signs of mental
instability in almost 20
years proved irrelevant.
Judge Preska declared
that my belief that I had “a
95 percent chance of
acquittal indicated I could
not appreciate the gravity of
the charges.” Therefore, she
declared that I “could not
adequately assist in (my)
defense,
” though my own
attorney swore otherwise.
My advanced understanding
of judicial proceedings and
high level of social
functioning in daily life
were also irrelevant,
according to Judge
Preska.
620
Judge Preska
announced her decision
moments after Dr. Kleinman
concluded his testimony
against me. Notably, Dr.
Kleinman declared that I
wrongly informed him the
Prosecution had floated a
plea bargain. Dr. Kleinman
cited that “mistake” as
proof that I could not
understand the proceedings,
or participate effectively in
my own defense—even
though my own attorney
protested otherwise.
621
Thanks to my foresight,
my Defense had tape
recordings of my interviews
with Dr. Kleinman.
622
We had hard proof that
Kleinman devoted two
hours trying to cajole and
manipulate me into pleading
guilty to tax charges,
something I was not
indicted for.
623 Dr.
Kleinman pushed hard for a
deal, while I steadfastly
refused and urged him to
move on to different topics.
He would come right back
to the plea deal. My reply,
captured on tape, was that I
didn’t owe any taxes, and if
there had been a mistake in
my filing to the IRS, I
would have amended my tax
return—and still not owed a
dime to the IRS.
When I rejected the
plea bargain, Dr. Kleinman
denied the conversation
took place.
Ah, what a difference a
tape recorder makes!
Shaughnessy was
appalled. We filed a Motion
for Reconsideration, but
Judge Preska ignored our
appeal.
624
By this time, no fewer
than five independent
psychologists and
psychiatrists in Maryland
had filed evaluations that
nothing was wrong with me.
They included Dr.
Taddesseh and his partner,
Dr. Kennedy at Family
Health Services; Dr. Tressa
Burton at Counseling Plus,
who observed me on a
weekly basis in Maryland; a
second psychiatrist hired by Pretrial Services to
evaluate me after Carswell,
who’s name Pretrial Services refused to reveal,
after he issued a favorable
evaluation. And Dr. Richard
Ratner, retained by
Shaughnessy for the
competence hearing.
That was an unusually
high number of psychiatrists
for any case—and they all
reported that they saw no
evidence of “psychiatric
symptoms” in my behavior.
Even Carswell admitted
that I showed no signs of
depression, delusions or
hallucinations. In
observation logs, prison
staff on M-1 called me
“cooperative and pleasant,
”
and noted I had “zero
behavioral problems” and
“functioned well on the
unit.”
Once, when confronted
about the fraud of
psychiatry in the courtroom,
Tressa Burton at Counseling
Plus tried to wheedle an
excuse. “Maybe they like
your politics. If they’re
lying, maybe they’re lying
to save you. Don’t you want
them to save you?”
“That’s the jury job,
” I
told her.
The Jury’s job, indeed.
And no others.
CHAPTER 34:
DIALOGUE!
DIALOGUE!
AND
DEMOCRACY!
A friend asked what
defines me more—my
achievements, even if I
carry them alone — or my
tragedy, which has been
very public and excoriating.
There’s a story that I
like very much, about a
woman who arrives in
Heaven, exhausted and
dispirited, after a long
journey on the earth marked
by many challenges and
disappointments.
The Lord takes her to a
stained glass window.
“Look,
” he says. “These are
the fragments of your life
that broke off on your
journey. You thought that
your soul was fragile like
glass. You thought these
broken pieces of you were
lost forever.”
“But here, you see, I
have saved them all for you.
I have taken these broken
parts, and made a picture of
your life in the colors of the
glass. Look how the colors
form a mosaic that
illustrates the story of who
you are. All of those dark
fragments come from the
hard times. But look how
those dark colors create
shadows around the bright
reds, the greens, and the
blues from your happier
days. And so the darkness
accentuates the joyful
moments of your life. The
darkness calls attention to
your light.”
“And together, all of it
is beautiful.”
My friend, John Edward Hurley told me that story, and I think it’s lovely.
I tell that story, because I believe that whatever price I paid for my journey, it was fully worth the cost. It was a hellacious fight, however. The men and women who did this tried to destroy my confidence and spirituality, my sense of identity and pride in my achievements.
Most days I think they failed. I take satisfaction that I have never regretted my actions or choices. I never recanted my political or spiritual beliefs, no matter how badly I felt threatened.
My friend, John Edward Hurley told me that story, and I think it’s lovely.
I tell that story, because I believe that whatever price I paid for my journey, it was fully worth the cost. It was a hellacious fight, however. The men and women who did this tried to destroy my confidence and spirituality, my sense of identity and pride in my achievements.
Most days I think they failed. I take satisfaction that I have never regretted my actions or choices. I never recanted my political or spiritual beliefs, no matter how badly I felt threatened.
I do believe, however,
that my experience sends a
warning shot across the bow
that our democracy and
precious liberties are not so
strongly protected as
Americans want to believe.
The attack on my activism was irredeemably corrupt from start to finish. Yet nothing stopped it. None of the civil rights enshrined in our Constitution had any impact slowing its momentum. Except for one shrewd and perceptive Judge, I would have been destroyed.
That’s the Patriot Act for you.
Franz Kafka would have been appalled by the deja vu.
Why go to so much trouble? What were Republican leaders hiding that they had to silence me under false indictment for five years without a trial?
I believe that answer is important—and surprisingly hopeful for our future.
Republican leaders wanted to hide the success of dialogue before the Iraqi war in winning Baghdad’s support for anti-terrorism and the 9/11 investigation. My efforts proved diplomacy could achieve results that would have defrayed the conflict, whereas leaders in Washington wanted the world to think War was the only solution.
The attack on my activism was irredeemably corrupt from start to finish. Yet nothing stopped it. None of the civil rights enshrined in our Constitution had any impact slowing its momentum. Except for one shrewd and perceptive Judge, I would have been destroyed.
That’s the Patriot Act for you.
Franz Kafka would have been appalled by the deja vu.
Why go to so much trouble? What were Republican leaders hiding that they had to silence me under false indictment for five years without a trial?
I believe that answer is important—and surprisingly hopeful for our future.
Republican leaders wanted to hide the success of dialogue before the Iraqi war in winning Baghdad’s support for anti-terrorism and the 9/11 investigation. My efforts proved diplomacy could achieve results that would have defrayed the conflict, whereas leaders in Washington wanted the world to think War was the only solution.
They were wrong.
Dialogue and engagement
created a strong opportunity
for peace.
I believe it’s important for all of us to know that, perhaps more important today than ever before. With conflicts and wildfires burning throughout the Middle East, there’s a sense of foreboding, as if our global community is racing to the edge of a cliff. Or getting pushed.
And what of us then?
For myself, I believe that we are ignoring a powerful tool that offers the possibility of ratcheting down those conflicts. It is simple. It is communication.
Dialogue and engagement offer a way forward. That is not idealistic or ineffectual. It can be vigorous and demanding, as Libya and Iraq have shown already.
In fact, it’s fairly simple. Changing the dynamic in Libya and Iraq started with one woman walking calmly into one embassy, and sitting down with diplomats, and sharing a cup of tea and friendly conversation. From that simple action, we created a back channel for discussion of the major issues interrupting our relationships.
I believe it’s important for all of us to know that, perhaps more important today than ever before. With conflicts and wildfires burning throughout the Middle East, there’s a sense of foreboding, as if our global community is racing to the edge of a cliff. Or getting pushed.
And what of us then?
For myself, I believe that we are ignoring a powerful tool that offers the possibility of ratcheting down those conflicts. It is simple. It is communication.
Dialogue and engagement offer a way forward. That is not idealistic or ineffectual. It can be vigorous and demanding, as Libya and Iraq have shown already.
In fact, it’s fairly simple. Changing the dynamic in Libya and Iraq started with one woman walking calmly into one embassy, and sitting down with diplomats, and sharing a cup of tea and friendly conversation. From that simple action, we created a back channel for discussion of the major issues interrupting our relationships.
That’s how the
Lockerbie Trial happened.
That’s how Libya stopped
acting as a sanctuary for
terrorists and embraced the
concept of nuclear
disarmament. Breaking
through the isolation of
sanctions, we found
common ground. And we
discovered that our two
sides could adopt some
measures of friendship. We
identified a few common
areas of agreement, and we
built out from there.
Libya was totally transformed. And it’s because of dialogue.
It was the same with Iraq. Most critically, the success of back-channel dialogue achieved all U.S. objectives two years before the invasion. 625 Once international loathing of Iraq’s humanitarian crisis pointed to the collapse of sanctions, U.S. Intelligence adopted an ambitious agenda for securing the maximum interests of the United States in any post sanctions period. And we succeeded to a degree that would have astonished Russia, France and China on the Security Council.
The results of our dialogue were outstanding, if I say so myself.
Through a period of intense back channel talks from November 2000 to March 2002, the CIA forced Iraq to accept the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, “with no conditions,” such that Iraq agreed to the most rigorous standards of compliance and maximum transparency ever imposed in history.
Baghdad put up no fight. Quite the opposite, in December, 2000, Iraq’s Ambassador Dr. Saeed Hasan vowed “it would be a short conversation, because Iraq was ready to prove its sincerity on all known U.S. demands.”
Indeed, Iraq encouraged Washington to consider its vast market potential across all sectors in weighing the value of a future alliance. Senior diplomats voiced Baghdad’s hope that the United States would become a major trading partner after sanctions. Diplomats frequently reminded me that before the 1990 Gulf War, Iraq had been a strong ally of the United States, as a buttress against Iran. That friendship could be renewed, they said. Iraq would show its appreciation.
The CIA put Baghdad to the test— demanding a lion’s share of reconstruction contracts— a “peace bonanza” for U.S. Corporations. Back channel dialogue won guarantees that U.S. corporations would have the right to return to Baghdad at the same level of market share they enjoyed before the 1990 Gulf War, barring military sales or dual-use production. Most importantly, U.S. corporations would receive priority contracts in telecommunications; health care, hospital equipment, and pharmaceuticals; factory construction and transportation.
Baghdad offered to buy one million American manufactured automobiles every year for 10 years.
U.S. Oil access was safe and secure, too. As of November 2000, Iraq promised the U.S. would enjoy full rights to participate in all future oil concessions at the first tier level. Iraq also guaranteed that U.S. oil would have rights to hold second and third tier concessions on contracts granted to France and Russia, as a way to guarantee U.S participation. There was no danger of the U.S. getting cut out of Iraqi oil exploration and production. And no other country lost oil contracts, under this arrangement, either.
From my own vantage point, some of the greatest success in back-channel talks involved Iraq’s cooperation with global anti-terrorism policy. Baghdad agreed that the FBI or Interpol or Scotland Yard could send a Task Force inside Iraq, with authorization to conduct terrorism investigations, interview witnesses, and arrest suspects. The FBI could have interviewed Al Anai, the Iraqi diplomat who allegedly met Mohammad Atta in Prague, Czechoslovakia, per the demands of Senator John McCain and Vice President Richard Cheney.
Moreover, Iraq offered to hand over a treasure trove of banking documents identifying the financial pipeline used by terrorists. And Baghdad freely offered to provide evidence of a Middle Eastern link to the 1993 World Trade Center attack and the Oklahoma City Bombing.
Finally, on my trip to Baghdad in March 2002, I developed an Iraqi source inside the Mukhabarat willing to act as a covert liaison to the FBI or Interpol. At great personal risk, he agreed to identify who entered the country, when, where they lived, who they met, and their activities. So the FBI Task Force could have tapped a local source for assistance, as well.
It was a phenomenal achievement—and the Justice Department prosecuted me for it. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished in Washington.
The help of my Iraqi Intelligence source was icing on the cake, really. If the United States and Britain cared about shutting down terrorist networks and sanctuaries after 9/11, Iraq’s cooperation would have produced the most substantial windfall of any nation.
These were practical actions—not propaganda.
Through my back channel, our team took the policy speeches in Washington and London, and turned them into something alive and meaningful. Our team understood the practical elements of successful terrorism containment. We’d done this work for a decade, and we understood the necessary structure required to implement it. Our blueprint was outstanding.
The opportunity for advancing key democratic reforms in Iraq—suggested by Iraqi officials themselves —surprised even me. It was tremendously exciting. Baghdad devised a highly creative platform for integrating Iraqi exiles into the political system. Iraq suggested that foreign embassies—which qualify as sovereign territory— could house returning Iraqi exiles, backed by embassy security, to guarantee their safety, while they reabsorbed into Baghdad society. Returning exiles would have enjoyed the rights to organize political parties with party headquarters, in competition with the Baathist Party, and full access to media, including the rights to create free opposition newspapers and apparatchik.
That was Iraq’s proposal in March, 2002— one year prior to the invasion. I think it’s an idea worth exploring in other conflict zones, where there’s a large exile population seeking to reestablish itself in the home country.
Weapons disarmament. Cooperation with global anti- terrorism. Economic reconstruction contracts. Oil contracts for the United States. Major democratic reforms. It’s hard to imagine what more the U.S. and Europe could have required.
At the risk of sounding crass to an international audience, if the CIA had thought of it, my team would have demanded it from Baghdad, shamelessly.
As a result, I can say confidently that Washington and London could have achieved every single objective that our leaders demanded from Iraq, without deploying a single soldier to occupy Baghdad, or firing a single missile to damage the country’s infrastructure. Not a single Iraqi mother or child had to die. Nor a single U.S. soldier.
I agreed to help as a back channel, because I hated the misery of sanctions for the Iraqi people. The pre-eminence of the United States was unchallenged at that time. I believed it would be necessary to satisfy U.S. demands in order to resolve the conflict. And so I accepted this role—gladly. And yes, I believe the world would have been better for it. The Middle East, too. And the Iraqi people most of all, for whom I have grieved.
War has cost us all so much. Iraq has imploded in a sectarian nightmare. The brutality of Occupation made a lie of liberation. Generations of Iraqi children will hate the West. The U.S. has lost a major regional ally in the Middle East for the future, while Iran has gained a powerful partner and neighbor, certain to check U.N. efforts at nuclear containment.
Our team kept our activities below radar, and out of media range. Yet our approach was results oriented and effective. We accomplished each part of our objectives, which promoted U.S. interests on a broad spectrum. Those were tough standards, too.
That’s why I was held under indictment for five years—through two Presidential elections in 2004 and 2008. Pro-War leaders in Washington would stop at nothing to hide those opportunities from daylight and public scrutiny. Republican leaders particularly enjoyed strutting about in the circus glitz of their national security policy, though it was purely spectacle and showmanship, without hard achievements to support the glamour. It suited Washington to pretend that Saddam’s government had been a stalwart supporter of terrorists in the Middle East, instead of a covetous western ally who despised— and in fact, persecuted— Islamic fundamentalists.
No matter that the conflict loomed large and appeared intractable, hope for peace remained undaunted right to the very end.
The greatest obstacle to peace in Iraq was the ambition of War itself, and the common belief that diplomacy could not achieve results, and therefore would not be worth the time to pursue aggressively.
That mentality handicapped us. It was wrong. And it needs to change.
Because contrary to what people think, dialogue did not fail. Our resolve for crisis resolution failed.
In my personal experience engaging directly with Libya and Iraq —two “pariah” nations in the 1990s— there is never a point at which dialogue cannot achieve results. No matter how difficult it appears, all things are possible through communication.
There are four necessary ingredients for success, I believe.
First, dialogue requires the courage of leadership to face problems head on, and to work beyond the level of propaganda.
Secondly, it requires a commitment to see solutions through to the end, without giving up at the first stumble. I have conservatively estimated that Libyan and Iraqi diplomats met with me 150 times each. In both cases, the work took longer than expected, but accomplished much more than we started out to achieve. By the time the United Nations jumped in, the scope of discussions was much broader and higher grade—and the scale of opportunities was much more dynamic than the public might have imagined.
Thirdly, I believe that crisis dialogue must be handled covertly at the start, as the most effective method of exploring creative options, and building possible scenarios that have not been considered before. Public debate in the media creates a demand for change, which is necessary and good. But media grandstanding does not advance the development of complex and intricate solutions. Premature media exposure can kill ideas. And that’s self-defeating. The goal should be to nurture an atmosphere of the possible, with a priority for exploring the most innovative strategies for achieving those goals.
Finally—and this is critical, though somewhat obvious—it’s vital to communicate respect for cultural and religious differences, even for those nations who qualify as our opponents. These individuals must be treated with dignity. They must become partners in bringing about a policy shift. As Iraq’s package of democracy reforms show, they too have ideas and strategies to contribute, which might surprise the most hardened cynic.
They, too, have a stake in the project’s success. Their cooperation is vital for the end game.
That was the essence of the approach that I used. And I assure you that we achieved much more than we started off to win, by applying that approach.
For that matter, consider what my team accomplished with Libya:
Ongoing conversations with Libyan diplomats, starting in 1995, broke the impasse on the Lockerbie Trial. By 1998, Libya had stopped functioning as a sanctuary for terrorists, and by 2004, Tripoli had renounced the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction, (both causes I championed). Tripoli also moved to develop economic ties with Europe. As of today, Libya has filled a seat on the United Nations Security Council.
Many attribute Libya’s change to the United Nations sanctions. They would be wrong. Dialogue and engagement changed the dynamic with Tripoli, thanks to my team’s efforts, joined by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who moved things forward in a highly effective and covert way. Our process of engagement made a deliberate point of showing respect for Libya’s identity and Islamic heritage, and appreciation for the value of Libya’s potential contributions to North Africa.
It was dialogue that accomplished those results.
Dialogue! Dialogue! Dialogue!
Finally, in the future, for the sake of world peace, the United Nations must embrace its fullest potential as a forum for engagement. The U.N. must take responsibility for attempting crisis resolution. When it came to Iraq and Libya, the United Nations stayed out of discussions until a structural framework for conflict resolution had been reached. In other words, U.N. diplomats only got involved once Libya had agreed to the Lockerbie Trial, and after Iraq agreed to resume weapons inspections, according to the maximum standards dictated by the United States.
Until an agreement was reached, the United Nations stayed out of crisis talks.
The United Nations expended no political capital to achieve those results. In fairness, with regards to Iraq, U.S. intelligence wanted to avoid U.N. input, so Washington could control the agenda. However, it’s also true that the U.N. showed no inclination to engage in conflict resolution with Iraq. They were quite happy to stay out of it. The United Nations was never at the front of leadership.
There was a critical exception. Malaysia’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Hasmy Agam and his senior diplomatic staff on the Security Council got involved on the sidelines, from the very beginning of talks in November, 2000.
Malaysia’s Embassy provided invaluable technical guidance vital to success. Because of their input, we guaranteed that Iraq’s commitment to weapons inspections would comport with U.N. standards for disarmament verification, as necessary to fulfill its obligations for ending the sanctions.
Likewise, Syria deserves praise for its urgent actions to avert war, as a member of the Security Council. Syria’s Ambassador offered to act as a crisis mediator with Washington in the run up to the Invasion.
In that success lies hope for future conflicts. The American people and the world community urgently need to know that engagement can be trusted to produce results that are highly effective and reliable.
Dialogue can accomplish the world’s goals—with a little help from democracy.
I am a huge believer in democracy. It’s a precious thing for ordinary people to contribute to public debates. Democracy empowers the people to offer our own ideas for problem solving. The practice of those freedoms and the process of seeking public input are messy, argumentative and contentious. Yet it’s vital for the public good. We must take special care to safeguard those civil rights, and not tolerate them to be degraded by the “lip service” of Washington politicians.
Throughout my nightmare on the Patriot Act, it struck me as unforgivable that American soldiers were sent to die and kill for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the practice of democracy at home was under siege. My crime was actively practicing freedom of speech and criticizing government policy. My team’s warnings about Iraq and 9/11 hit the mark with such a high degree of accuracy that the possibility of exposure frightened leaders in Washington and London.
But perhaps that misses the point. Even if I had been wrong, I should have the right to speak. Alas, they had power. And they wanted me to understand that I had none.
I was nothing. Just another American.
Well, that’s fine with me. I happen to enjoy being “just another American.”
There’s a ubiquitous saying that actions speak louder than words. In which case, all of us should sit up and take notice. The actions of Washington’s leaders betrayed a conviction that Americans should stay out of governance and policy making. If we interject ourselves into the public debate, trusting our rights to contribute, believing this country belongs to us, and our leaders should be accountable to us, then politicians in Washington have decided we should be removed and punished until we accept our disenfranchisement.
Our participation is no longer welcomed.
Worst of all, in the Patriot Act, Congress has created a weapon for punishment, if Americans don’t get the message. We can be silenced through secret accusations. The government has no burden to show evidence to a Judge or jury that a crime has been committed. The FBI and Prosecutors have no obligation to acknowledge alibis for the alleged wrongdoing. American citizens can be detained indefinitely without trial. They can lock us up on military bases, abusing the integrity of our soldiers, and deny us access to our attorneys.
All constitutional protections are formally revoked.
Wake up people! Americans are not nearly as frightened as they should be. The Patriot Act endangers our way of life as a country, and our purpose as a people.
Many Americans would like to presume that George Bush did this. And he’s gone. So we’re safe now.
No mistake could be greater. Republican and Democrats on Capitol Hill orchestrated this attack together. Yes, it was primarily carried out by supporters of Senator John McCain, who reigns over the Senate to this day. But my attackers were petty bureaucrats and party officials of the sort memorialized by Franz Kafka.
They have not gone away. On the contrary, they have burrowed more deeply into the power structure. They remain entrenched in Washington society at all levels.
Only now I fear they have learned to use the Patriot Act more effectively as a weapon against their fellow Americans. Their actions demonstrate that they will not be dissuaded by American traditions of liberty and justice that they swore to uphold
That means this kind of thing is going to happen more and more frequently. They’re going to become bolder and more vicious— until Americans demand that the Patriot Act must be repealed.
Free thinking Americans face the greatest risk of all—regardless of political stripe.
I was the second American-born citizen targeted by the Patriot Act. I won’t be the last. If you don’t believe me, while I was under indictment, in Maryland where I live, State Police decided that local environmentalists campaigning to stop global warming qualified as potential “terrorists, ” and should be subjected to surveillance allowed by the Patriot Act.
Applying the ruthless power of the Patriot Act that equates civil disobedience with sedition, Maryland State Police targeted the Chesapeake Climate Action Network—though its members are dedicated to solar energy, wind power and recycling.
In the twisted schematics of the new surveillance culture, the DC Anti-War Network got designated as a “white supremacist group.” Amnesty International got investigated for “civil rights violations.” Animal rights activists working with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) were labeled “a security threat.” Groups opposed to the death penalty were declared “potentially violent.”
Invoking the Patriot Act, Maryland State Police tapped their phones and monitored the physical movements of group leaders, in broad surveillance operations. At least one State Trooper infiltrated several peace groups to monitor upcoming events.
I ask myself often. How did America lose its heart? When did we lose faith in the values of liberty in our country? Because that’s what happening today.
We are afraid of freedom. Unless we take action to repeal the Patriot Act, many more independent thinking Americans will get hurt. We should force our leaders to prove their loyalty to our democracy by disavowing its terrible precepts. It is a law of treachery. There’s nothing “patriotic” about tearing down our beloved Constitution. That’s traitorous.
For myself, I have no regrets for what I paid to support my values. I stood up for what I love. My work gave me the greatest sense of personal satisfaction and adventures that I could have hoped for.
Knowing the consequences, I would change nothing, even if I could.
These days I am a “free agent” for peace and nonviolence. I still live in Takoma Park doing animal rescue work, with my little family of dachshunds and kitty cats.
My Japanese weeping cherry tree, planted the week of my arrest, still grows in my front yard, serene and undisturbed by the tumultuous times of our world.
Each spring, my peace tree blossoms in white petals again. And though all of us working together failed to stop this tragic War in Iraq, in my heart I am content to know that all of us tried so hard together.
As Odysseus Elytis wrote about the fight against fascism in Greece: “Let them stone us. Let them say that we walk with our heads in the clouds. Those who have never felt, my friend, with what rock, what blood, what iron and fire we build, dream and sing.” 626
Five days before the inauguration of President Barak Obama, the Justice Department formally dismissed all charges against Susan Lindauer. 627 In five years of indictment as an alleged “Iraqi Agent,” she was never convicted of any crime. And she never stopped demanding her rights to a trial....
Libya was totally transformed. And it’s because of dialogue.
It was the same with Iraq. Most critically, the success of back-channel dialogue achieved all U.S. objectives two years before the invasion. 625 Once international loathing of Iraq’s humanitarian crisis pointed to the collapse of sanctions, U.S. Intelligence adopted an ambitious agenda for securing the maximum interests of the United States in any post sanctions period. And we succeeded to a degree that would have astonished Russia, France and China on the Security Council.
The results of our dialogue were outstanding, if I say so myself.
Through a period of intense back channel talks from November 2000 to March 2002, the CIA forced Iraq to accept the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, “with no conditions,” such that Iraq agreed to the most rigorous standards of compliance and maximum transparency ever imposed in history.
Baghdad put up no fight. Quite the opposite, in December, 2000, Iraq’s Ambassador Dr. Saeed Hasan vowed “it would be a short conversation, because Iraq was ready to prove its sincerity on all known U.S. demands.”
Indeed, Iraq encouraged Washington to consider its vast market potential across all sectors in weighing the value of a future alliance. Senior diplomats voiced Baghdad’s hope that the United States would become a major trading partner after sanctions. Diplomats frequently reminded me that before the 1990 Gulf War, Iraq had been a strong ally of the United States, as a buttress against Iran. That friendship could be renewed, they said. Iraq would show its appreciation.
The CIA put Baghdad to the test— demanding a lion’s share of reconstruction contracts— a “peace bonanza” for U.S. Corporations. Back channel dialogue won guarantees that U.S. corporations would have the right to return to Baghdad at the same level of market share they enjoyed before the 1990 Gulf War, barring military sales or dual-use production. Most importantly, U.S. corporations would receive priority contracts in telecommunications; health care, hospital equipment, and pharmaceuticals; factory construction and transportation.
Baghdad offered to buy one million American manufactured automobiles every year for 10 years.
U.S. Oil access was safe and secure, too. As of November 2000, Iraq promised the U.S. would enjoy full rights to participate in all future oil concessions at the first tier level. Iraq also guaranteed that U.S. oil would have rights to hold second and third tier concessions on contracts granted to France and Russia, as a way to guarantee U.S participation. There was no danger of the U.S. getting cut out of Iraqi oil exploration and production. And no other country lost oil contracts, under this arrangement, either.
From my own vantage point, some of the greatest success in back-channel talks involved Iraq’s cooperation with global anti-terrorism policy. Baghdad agreed that the FBI or Interpol or Scotland Yard could send a Task Force inside Iraq, with authorization to conduct terrorism investigations, interview witnesses, and arrest suspects. The FBI could have interviewed Al Anai, the Iraqi diplomat who allegedly met Mohammad Atta in Prague, Czechoslovakia, per the demands of Senator John McCain and Vice President Richard Cheney.
Moreover, Iraq offered to hand over a treasure trove of banking documents identifying the financial pipeline used by terrorists. And Baghdad freely offered to provide evidence of a Middle Eastern link to the 1993 World Trade Center attack and the Oklahoma City Bombing.
Finally, on my trip to Baghdad in March 2002, I developed an Iraqi source inside the Mukhabarat willing to act as a covert liaison to the FBI or Interpol. At great personal risk, he agreed to identify who entered the country, when, where they lived, who they met, and their activities. So the FBI Task Force could have tapped a local source for assistance, as well.
It was a phenomenal achievement—and the Justice Department prosecuted me for it. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished in Washington.
The help of my Iraqi Intelligence source was icing on the cake, really. If the United States and Britain cared about shutting down terrorist networks and sanctuaries after 9/11, Iraq’s cooperation would have produced the most substantial windfall of any nation.
These were practical actions—not propaganda.
Through my back channel, our team took the policy speeches in Washington and London, and turned them into something alive and meaningful. Our team understood the practical elements of successful terrorism containment. We’d done this work for a decade, and we understood the necessary structure required to implement it. Our blueprint was outstanding.
The opportunity for advancing key democratic reforms in Iraq—suggested by Iraqi officials themselves —surprised even me. It was tremendously exciting. Baghdad devised a highly creative platform for integrating Iraqi exiles into the political system. Iraq suggested that foreign embassies—which qualify as sovereign territory— could house returning Iraqi exiles, backed by embassy security, to guarantee their safety, while they reabsorbed into Baghdad society. Returning exiles would have enjoyed the rights to organize political parties with party headquarters, in competition with the Baathist Party, and full access to media, including the rights to create free opposition newspapers and apparatchik.
That was Iraq’s proposal in March, 2002— one year prior to the invasion. I think it’s an idea worth exploring in other conflict zones, where there’s a large exile population seeking to reestablish itself in the home country.
Weapons disarmament. Cooperation with global anti- terrorism. Economic reconstruction contracts. Oil contracts for the United States. Major democratic reforms. It’s hard to imagine what more the U.S. and Europe could have required.
At the risk of sounding crass to an international audience, if the CIA had thought of it, my team would have demanded it from Baghdad, shamelessly.
As a result, I can say confidently that Washington and London could have achieved every single objective that our leaders demanded from Iraq, without deploying a single soldier to occupy Baghdad, or firing a single missile to damage the country’s infrastructure. Not a single Iraqi mother or child had to die. Nor a single U.S. soldier.
I agreed to help as a back channel, because I hated the misery of sanctions for the Iraqi people. The pre-eminence of the United States was unchallenged at that time. I believed it would be necessary to satisfy U.S. demands in order to resolve the conflict. And so I accepted this role—gladly. And yes, I believe the world would have been better for it. The Middle East, too. And the Iraqi people most of all, for whom I have grieved.
War has cost us all so much. Iraq has imploded in a sectarian nightmare. The brutality of Occupation made a lie of liberation. Generations of Iraqi children will hate the West. The U.S. has lost a major regional ally in the Middle East for the future, while Iran has gained a powerful partner and neighbor, certain to check U.N. efforts at nuclear containment.
Our team kept our activities below radar, and out of media range. Yet our approach was results oriented and effective. We accomplished each part of our objectives, which promoted U.S. interests on a broad spectrum. Those were tough standards, too.
That’s why I was held under indictment for five years—through two Presidential elections in 2004 and 2008. Pro-War leaders in Washington would stop at nothing to hide those opportunities from daylight and public scrutiny. Republican leaders particularly enjoyed strutting about in the circus glitz of their national security policy, though it was purely spectacle and showmanship, without hard achievements to support the glamour. It suited Washington to pretend that Saddam’s government had been a stalwart supporter of terrorists in the Middle East, instead of a covetous western ally who despised— and in fact, persecuted— Islamic fundamentalists.
Why Truth Matters Today
Given the cynicism of
our day—and the thundering
rage and desperation the
world now faces—I believe
it’s critical for Americans
and the international
community to understand
the truth of what dialogue
accomplished in Iraq. No matter that the conflict loomed large and appeared intractable, hope for peace remained undaunted right to the very end.
The greatest obstacle to peace in Iraq was the ambition of War itself, and the common belief that diplomacy could not achieve results, and therefore would not be worth the time to pursue aggressively.
That mentality handicapped us. It was wrong. And it needs to change.
Because contrary to what people think, dialogue did not fail. Our resolve for crisis resolution failed.
In my personal experience engaging directly with Libya and Iraq —two “pariah” nations in the 1990s— there is never a point at which dialogue cannot achieve results. No matter how difficult it appears, all things are possible through communication.
There are four necessary ingredients for success, I believe.
First, dialogue requires the courage of leadership to face problems head on, and to work beyond the level of propaganda.
Secondly, it requires a commitment to see solutions through to the end, without giving up at the first stumble. I have conservatively estimated that Libyan and Iraqi diplomats met with me 150 times each. In both cases, the work took longer than expected, but accomplished much more than we started out to achieve. By the time the United Nations jumped in, the scope of discussions was much broader and higher grade—and the scale of opportunities was much more dynamic than the public might have imagined.
Thirdly, I believe that crisis dialogue must be handled covertly at the start, as the most effective method of exploring creative options, and building possible scenarios that have not been considered before. Public debate in the media creates a demand for change, which is necessary and good. But media grandstanding does not advance the development of complex and intricate solutions. Premature media exposure can kill ideas. And that’s self-defeating. The goal should be to nurture an atmosphere of the possible, with a priority for exploring the most innovative strategies for achieving those goals.
Finally—and this is critical, though somewhat obvious—it’s vital to communicate respect for cultural and religious differences, even for those nations who qualify as our opponents. These individuals must be treated with dignity. They must become partners in bringing about a policy shift. As Iraq’s package of democracy reforms show, they too have ideas and strategies to contribute, which might surprise the most hardened cynic.
They, too, have a stake in the project’s success. Their cooperation is vital for the end game.
That was the essence of the approach that I used. And I assure you that we achieved much more than we started off to win, by applying that approach.
For that matter, consider what my team accomplished with Libya:
Ongoing conversations with Libyan diplomats, starting in 1995, broke the impasse on the Lockerbie Trial. By 1998, Libya had stopped functioning as a sanctuary for terrorists, and by 2004, Tripoli had renounced the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction, (both causes I championed). Tripoli also moved to develop economic ties with Europe. As of today, Libya has filled a seat on the United Nations Security Council.
Many attribute Libya’s change to the United Nations sanctions. They would be wrong. Dialogue and engagement changed the dynamic with Tripoli, thanks to my team’s efforts, joined by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who moved things forward in a highly effective and covert way. Our process of engagement made a deliberate point of showing respect for Libya’s identity and Islamic heritage, and appreciation for the value of Libya’s potential contributions to North Africa.
It was dialogue that accomplished those results.
Dialogue! Dialogue! Dialogue!
Finally, in the future, for the sake of world peace, the United Nations must embrace its fullest potential as a forum for engagement. The U.N. must take responsibility for attempting crisis resolution. When it came to Iraq and Libya, the United Nations stayed out of discussions until a structural framework for conflict resolution had been reached. In other words, U.N. diplomats only got involved once Libya had agreed to the Lockerbie Trial, and after Iraq agreed to resume weapons inspections, according to the maximum standards dictated by the United States.
Until an agreement was reached, the United Nations stayed out of crisis talks.
The United Nations expended no political capital to achieve those results. In fairness, with regards to Iraq, U.S. intelligence wanted to avoid U.N. input, so Washington could control the agenda. However, it’s also true that the U.N. showed no inclination to engage in conflict resolution with Iraq. They were quite happy to stay out of it. The United Nations was never at the front of leadership.
There was a critical exception. Malaysia’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Hasmy Agam and his senior diplomatic staff on the Security Council got involved on the sidelines, from the very beginning of talks in November, 2000.
Malaysia’s Embassy provided invaluable technical guidance vital to success. Because of their input, we guaranteed that Iraq’s commitment to weapons inspections would comport with U.N. standards for disarmament verification, as necessary to fulfill its obligations for ending the sanctions.
Likewise, Syria deserves praise for its urgent actions to avert war, as a member of the Security Council. Syria’s Ambassador offered to act as a crisis mediator with Washington in the run up to the Invasion.
In that success lies hope for future conflicts. The American people and the world community urgently need to know that engagement can be trusted to produce results that are highly effective and reliable.
Dialogue can accomplish the world’s goals—with a little help from democracy.
I am a huge believer in democracy. It’s a precious thing for ordinary people to contribute to public debates. Democracy empowers the people to offer our own ideas for problem solving. The practice of those freedoms and the process of seeking public input are messy, argumentative and contentious. Yet it’s vital for the public good. We must take special care to safeguard those civil rights, and not tolerate them to be degraded by the “lip service” of Washington politicians.
Throughout my nightmare on the Patriot Act, it struck me as unforgivable that American soldiers were sent to die and kill for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the practice of democracy at home was under siege. My crime was actively practicing freedom of speech and criticizing government policy. My team’s warnings about Iraq and 9/11 hit the mark with such a high degree of accuracy that the possibility of exposure frightened leaders in Washington and London.
But perhaps that misses the point. Even if I had been wrong, I should have the right to speak. Alas, they had power. And they wanted me to understand that I had none.
I was nothing. Just another American.
Well, that’s fine with me. I happen to enjoy being “just another American.”
There’s a ubiquitous saying that actions speak louder than words. In which case, all of us should sit up and take notice. The actions of Washington’s leaders betrayed a conviction that Americans should stay out of governance and policy making. If we interject ourselves into the public debate, trusting our rights to contribute, believing this country belongs to us, and our leaders should be accountable to us, then politicians in Washington have decided we should be removed and punished until we accept our disenfranchisement.
Our participation is no longer welcomed.
Worst of all, in the Patriot Act, Congress has created a weapon for punishment, if Americans don’t get the message. We can be silenced through secret accusations. The government has no burden to show evidence to a Judge or jury that a crime has been committed. The FBI and Prosecutors have no obligation to acknowledge alibis for the alleged wrongdoing. American citizens can be detained indefinitely without trial. They can lock us up on military bases, abusing the integrity of our soldiers, and deny us access to our attorneys.
All constitutional protections are formally revoked.
Wake up people! Americans are not nearly as frightened as they should be. The Patriot Act endangers our way of life as a country, and our purpose as a people.
Many Americans would like to presume that George Bush did this. And he’s gone. So we’re safe now.
No mistake could be greater. Republican and Democrats on Capitol Hill orchestrated this attack together. Yes, it was primarily carried out by supporters of Senator John McCain, who reigns over the Senate to this day. But my attackers were petty bureaucrats and party officials of the sort memorialized by Franz Kafka.
They have not gone away. On the contrary, they have burrowed more deeply into the power structure. They remain entrenched in Washington society at all levels.
Only now I fear they have learned to use the Patriot Act more effectively as a weapon against their fellow Americans. Their actions demonstrate that they will not be dissuaded by American traditions of liberty and justice that they swore to uphold
That means this kind of thing is going to happen more and more frequently. They’re going to become bolder and more vicious— until Americans demand that the Patriot Act must be repealed.
Free thinking Americans face the greatest risk of all—regardless of political stripe.
I was the second American-born citizen targeted by the Patriot Act. I won’t be the last. If you don’t believe me, while I was under indictment, in Maryland where I live, State Police decided that local environmentalists campaigning to stop global warming qualified as potential “terrorists, ” and should be subjected to surveillance allowed by the Patriot Act.
Applying the ruthless power of the Patriot Act that equates civil disobedience with sedition, Maryland State Police targeted the Chesapeake Climate Action Network—though its members are dedicated to solar energy, wind power and recycling.
In the twisted schematics of the new surveillance culture, the DC Anti-War Network got designated as a “white supremacist group.” Amnesty International got investigated for “civil rights violations.” Animal rights activists working with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) were labeled “a security threat.” Groups opposed to the death penalty were declared “potentially violent.”
Invoking the Patriot Act, Maryland State Police tapped their phones and monitored the physical movements of group leaders, in broad surveillance operations. At least one State Trooper infiltrated several peace groups to monitor upcoming events.
I ask myself often. How did America lose its heart? When did we lose faith in the values of liberty in our country? Because that’s what happening today.
We are afraid of freedom. Unless we take action to repeal the Patriot Act, many more independent thinking Americans will get hurt. We should force our leaders to prove their loyalty to our democracy by disavowing its terrible precepts. It is a law of treachery. There’s nothing “patriotic” about tearing down our beloved Constitution. That’s traitorous.
For myself, I have no regrets for what I paid to support my values. I stood up for what I love. My work gave me the greatest sense of personal satisfaction and adventures that I could have hoped for.
Knowing the consequences, I would change nothing, even if I could.
These days I am a “free agent” for peace and nonviolence. I still live in Takoma Park doing animal rescue work, with my little family of dachshunds and kitty cats.
My Japanese weeping cherry tree, planted the week of my arrest, still grows in my front yard, serene and undisturbed by the tumultuous times of our world.
Each spring, my peace tree blossoms in white petals again. And though all of us working together failed to stop this tragic War in Iraq, in my heart I am content to know that all of us tried so hard together.
As Odysseus Elytis wrote about the fight against fascism in Greece: “Let them stone us. Let them say that we walk with our heads in the clouds. Those who have never felt, my friend, with what rock, what blood, what iron and fire we build, dream and sing.” 626
Five days before the inauguration of President Barak Obama, the Justice Department formally dismissed all charges against Susan Lindauer. 627 In five years of indictment as an alleged “Iraqi Agent,” she was never convicted of any crime. And she never stopped demanding her rights to a trial....
No comments:
Post a Comment