Patterico's Pontifications

10/18/2006

Clint Taylor on Susan Lindauer

Filed under: General,Terrorism — Patterico @ 12:16 am



Clint Taylor has this American Spectator piece about Susan Lindauer. “[D]eeply disturbed fantasist” or traitor? You be the judge.

5 Responses to “Clint Taylor on Susan Lindauer”

  1. a resistance group killed an american civilian mailman in tikrit? wtf, are we delivering their mail for them now?

    assistant devil's advocate (993dc4)

  2. “[D]eeply disturbed fantasist” or traitor? You be the judge.

    Obviously, the woman’s nuts and also deeply involved in supporting terrorists. So, it’s not an either/or question. She’s both, and she belongs in jail.

    Black Jack (211e83)

  3. If a person is psychotic and judged to not be an immediate danger to themselves or others it can be difficult to mandate treatment. I am not sure how one accused (with evidence, that is) of collaborating with enemy agents can be judged as not being a threat.
    Apparently the judge thought she was harmless, psychotic or not. Sounds curious from this vantage point.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  4. Well if she were guilty of being a spy or a traitor, they should have charged her as such. Instead, the indict her on a technical charge for being an unregistered lobbiest then try to villify her and discredit her putting such language in the indictment and throwing her into the mental facility without a chance to present her own witnesses or questin government accusations. Moreover, she was actually medicated improperly prior to release on bail at the 2004 arrest so that she was looped on medicine (that pre-trial counselors terminated as “unbalancing” a short time later) when the press finally got a chance to talk to her. If you read the decision of the very conservative judge, you might see that this was not a high water mark for the justice department in the war against terrorism. It mostly showed their desperation and the lenghts that desperate officials will go to if they need to look like they are strong enough to protect us after failing to do so.

    JB (6c1513)

  5. Honestly, I think if there were any grounds to believe that Lindauer was actually dangerous to herself, others, her country, soldiers fighting in Iraq, or to the general public safety, we would be seeing a different outcome right now.

    As JB rightly points out above, it was a *very* conservative judge who rendered the recent decision to release her. I personally find the idea of forced medication to be deeply troubling– if it is to be allowed at all it is certainly fair to hold the prosecution to a very high standard of evidence. The judge stated very clearly in his decision what the legal standard was, and found (with great clarity I think) that Lindauer’s case did not meet that standard.

    Maybe Susan is mentally ill, maybe not. Maybe she is no more mentally ill than anyone else out there. I cannot say.

    Is she a traitor? Well, seeing that the prosecution doesn’t even accuse her of treason I think we can lay that jingoistic accusation to rest.

    One thing we can say for certain is that defendants are still considered innocent until proven guilty in this country. I hope nobody reading this is crazy enough to think that should change.

    Lindauer has not had the benefit of a trial. None of us really know anything substantial about the evidence against her, or if it even exists. No trial, no guilt. This is fair.

    SB (9f60fa)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0797 secs.