Susan Lindauer: Secret Charges and The Patriot Act

[formercia]

Tuesday, 10 March 2009, 5:12 pm
Article: Michael Collins

Former Accused Iraqi Agent
Susan Lindauer, Secret Charges and
The Patriot Act in Action

--snip--

Collins: What happened when you got to court?

Lindauer: Once I got to Court, I discovered that the indictment also contained two "secret charges," gratis of the Patriot Act. My attorney and I were given the dates for the two allegations, saying that I attended meetings with Iraqi officials in October, 1999 and October, 2001, but nothing more to explain what I had allegedly done wrong.

There was nothing unusual about the fact that those meetings had occurred. I visited the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations about every three weeks for 7 years. My handlers were fully informed, which explains how the government could have been tracking the dates in the first place. They got the dates from me.

"a. On or about October 14, 1999, Susan Lindauer -- met with an officer of the Iraq Intelligence Service (“IIS”) in Manhattan.

"c. In or about October 2001, SUSAN LINDAUER -- accepted a task given to her in Manhattan by an officer of the IIS." USA v. Lindauer. S2 03 Cr. 807 (MBM)

No, the government was claiming that something unusual took place during those specific meetings. Under the Patriot Act, the Prosecution was not required to tell us what those offensive actions were. Nor was the Court allowed to tell us what type of laws might have been violated by those actions.

We were only told that conviction on either of the "secret charges" would get me five years in federal prison.

Collins: Please help readers understand more about "secret evidence." Were you and your lawyer denied access to evidence, because it was considered "secret" or "classified"? How did this work under the Patriot Act?

Lindauer: It's unbelievable, isn't it? As if "secret charges" were not terrible enough, there was also "secret evidence" which could be applied to those "secret charges."

The Prosecution had the right to ask a jury to convict me of those two undisclosed charges without revealing a shred of evidence to support the charges whatsoever. The Patriot Act authorized the prosecutor to ask a jury to "take it on faith" that some unspecified evidence would prove that some unspecified law had been broken.

If a judge so instructed before deliberations, the jury could be required to ignore the lack of presentation of evidence in weighing whether to convict me. The Judge could simply instruct a jury that the Justice Department regarded the evidence as "sufficient" to constitute a crime and that would be "sufficient knowledge" for their review. That kind of instruction practically requires a jury to convict a defendant.

The fundamental question of "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is shattered. To say the least, it drastically undercuts protections in the jury system of the United States.

Conversely, evidence that might exonerate me, and prove my innocence, could be considered "secret and classified" as well. My attorney and I could be prohibited from knowing of its existence or using it in my defense. Even if that evidence or witness statements tossed out the whole case, and saved me from years in prison, I would not be entitled to know of its existence or present it to the jury.

Collins: This sounds like Franz Kafka's "The Trial" combined with the Queen of Hearts in "Alice in Wonderland." How did you conceptualize your experience at the time?

--snip--

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. I can't imagine being on a jury and convicting someone on the above info

I would not convict anyone based on "secret" evidence not presented to me as a juror regardless of what the judge instructed.