The CIA was spying on Diana.....

[Joanne98]

Princess Di Revelations...10 Years Later
by Julie Keller
Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:46:57 AM PST

Suspense, lies and intrigue still swirl around Princess Diana nearly decade after her death.

A new report due out this week on the death of the beloved British icon will apparently reveal that the CIA was bugging her phones prior to her fatal car crash in Paris Aug. 31, 1997, and that the car's driver was drunk and speeding that night.

London's Observer reports that the U.S. intel agency had tuned into Diana's telephone conversations, without the approval of British authorities, mere hours before she and her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed, died.

However, security experts and royal watchers say the bugging is not likely part of some nefarious plot but rather simply a result of her involvement as an anti-land mine crusader.

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=6bf62e88-a9fc-4d36-a07c-c74963036245

The NSA was spying on her too. At least they admit it was because she got involved in landmines. The report comes out Thursday. It's going to "put all CT's to rest". Not for me. I still think she was assassinated.

"Perhaps it's that link that made her of interest to outside intelligence services," said Crispin Black, a former British government intelligence analyst, told ABC News. "That doesn't mean it was something sinister."

[WI_DEM]

1. Why were they bugging the phone of some playgirl princess?

or didn't they like who she was dating?

[Joanne98]

3. Landmines. The UN had a Landmine Treaty. The US wouldn't sign it

Diana was trying to push it though...

[Joanne98]

2. NSA admits to spying on Diana!

NSA Admits to Spying on Princess Diana
By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 12, 1998; Page A13

The National Security Agency has disclosed that U.S. intelligence is holding 1,056 pages of classified information about the late Princess Diana, inspiring a flurry of sensational headlines this week across London's tabloids.

"America's spy chiefs admitted last night they snooped on Princess Diana for years -- and learned some of her most intimate love secrets," The Mirror reported on Thursday. The Daily Record claimed that the NSA intercepts "have gone on right until she died in the Paris car crash with Dodi Fayed."

The truth, while intriguing, is unlikely to be so lurid. The source of the Fleet Street speculation was a simple, two-page NSA denial of a Freedom of Information Act request. In the denial, released last month, the super-secret U.S. spy agency admitted possessing a Diana file.

The document says nothing about the contents of those 1,056 secret pages, why they were gathered or how they were obtained. One U.S. intelligence official said yesterday that the references to Diana in intercepted conversations were "incidental."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/dec98/diana12.htm

[renate]

4. it's sad that she was mocked for being paranoid

:(

[Joanne98]

9. I know...

[thingfisher]

5. Nothing nefarious here folks.... move on, move on...

Just goes to show you that when they have the technology they will use it!
Oh, it was about her anti-landmine stand? Oh, well then that explains it all. Perfectly reasonable then!

WHAT A CROCK !!!

[judaspriestess]

6. I miss Princess Diana

she is a beloved icon to me. I love her. I hope she was not assassinated. It would not surprise me.

[Joanne98]

8. I miss her too. Her funeral was the saddest thing I ever seen..

[Joanne98]

7. Her driver was working for French intell....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a move that raises fresh questions over transatlantic agreements on intelligence-sharing, the surveillance arm of the US has admitted listening to her conversations as she stayed at the Ritz hotel, but failed to notify MI6. Stevens is understood to have been assured that the 39 classified documents detailing Diana's final conversations did not reveal anything sinister or contain material that might help explain her death.
Scotland Yard's inquiry, published this Thursday, also throws up further intelligence links with the Princess of Wales on the night she died. The driver of the Mercedes, Henri Paul, was in the pay of the French equivalent of M15. Stevens traced £100,000 he had amassed in 14 French bank accounts though no payments have been linked to Diana's death.

Stevens's conclusion is that Diana, her companion Dodi Fayed, and Paul himself died in an accident caused by Paul driving too fast through the Pont de l'Alma underpass in Paris while under the influence of drink. The car was being pursued by photographers at the time.

Tests have confirmed that Paul was more than three times over the French drink-drive limit and was travelling at 'excessive' speed. The inquiry will quash a number of conspiracy theories that have circulated since 31 August 1997, among them that Diana was pregnant. It also found no evidence that the princess was planning to get engaged to Dodi, son of Mohamed Fayed.

The Harrods tycoon believes that Paul's blood samples were swapped to portray him as a drunk in an elaborate cover-up by the establishment to stop Diana marrying Dodi, a Muslim.

Stevens is expected to concede that while there was a mix-up it was an accident and that the original French post-mortem which found that Paul was three-times over the French drink-drive limit was correct.

He is also expected to discount the role of the white Fiat Uno which struck Diana's car shortly before the crash, even though British police officers have failed to track down the vehicle which left paintwork on the black Mercedes.

The inquiry will support the findings of the original French accident inquiry in criticising the paparazzi as a possible reason for encouraging Paul to speed. The 'bright light' theory - the claim that the driver was deliberately blinded by a beam immediately before the crash - is also dismissed by Stevens.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1968664,00.html#article_continue

[CJCRANE]

10. Um...isn't it just as likely

that the Fiat Uno caused the crash? Maybe I've been watching too many police chase videos but when you clip a car with another car that often causes it to veer off course and crash.

[Joanne98]

12. The report is going to discount the role of the Fiat

He is also expected to discount the role of the white Fiat Uno which struck Diana's car shortly before the crash, even though British police officers have failed to track down the vehicle which left paintwork on the black Mercedes.

[CJCRANE]

17. They also admit there was a "mix-up"

with the driver's blood samples, but it was simply an "accident"...

Ok, let's face it - the report is hardly going to conclude that this was a state-sanctioned hit, even if the evidence was there.

[Joanne98]

23. Really. We should believe these tests? NOT!

[judaspriestess]

11. I believe it was a tragic accident

the fact of the matter is after the crash, the princess was kept at the scene for roughly two hours as they tried to "stabilize" her. Unfortunately she was bleeding internally and they did not get her to the hospital in time resulting in her death from the internal bleeding, which was survivable if taken care of quickly. Her death could have been prevented if the paramedics had simply taken her to the hospital quickly to get a cat scan. France does not have a "scoop and run" policy as the states do and they did not know she was bleeding internally, which sounds kinda backwards to me.

RIP Diana.

[Joanne98]

13. I always thought that was suspious...

Princess Diana was bleeding to death but the ambulance guys wouldn't bresk the rules. Maybe they didn't recognize her. (sarcasm)

[nashville_brook]

14. "not some nefarious plot," but b/c of her work against landmines

sorry -- but spying on people b/c of their political view IS NEFARIOUS.

[Joanne98]

15. US Refuses to sign Landmine treaty....

Here's some background. As far as I know they have STILL not signed it.

U.S. Loses Moral Ground on Land Mine Ban
by Bob Keeler

Nearly five years after the ceremonial signing of an international treaty to ban land mines, these deadly seeds planted malevolently in the earth continue to bear bloody fruit around the world: severed limbs, broken lives, shattered families.

And still, the United States refuses to join 129 other nations that have already ratified the treaty. Once again, our government's ungovernable urge to go it alone casts the nation in the role of pariah.

Former President Bill Clinton deserves a major share of the blame, for failing to override the Pentagon's argument that the treaty would somehow endanger the defense of South Korea. But last year, eight senior retired U.S. commanders, including men who had led troops in Korea, wrote to President George W. Bush and argued that land mines were not needed in Korea. In fact, they'd slow the response by the United States and South Korea to any invasion from the North. (Right now both Koreas are removing land mines along the demilitarized zone that separates them.)

Before leaving office, Clinton did say that the United States would join the treaty by 2006, provided the nation can find "alternatives" to antipersonnel land mines. After Bush took office, his administration began a review of the policy. The Department of Defense has already recommended that the United States abandon any plans to join the treaty. The policy is still under study, but advocates for the treaty fear that Bush, the ultimate unilateralist cowboy, will reject even Clinton's feeble plan for America to do the right thing eventually.

The truth is that the protection of Korea is not the real reason for the Pentagon's intransigence. What the generals really fear is the precedent that joining the treaty would set: If a bunch of civilians can band together and force the Pentagon to abandon one of its weapons, then none of its weapons would be safe. So this is not about Korea at all. It's about generals protecting their toys from rampaging peacemakers.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1021-04.htm

[Radical Activist]

16. Makes me wonder who else we spy on.

I guess you can always find an excuse.

[AnnInLa]

18. Glenn Greenwald and David Frum go toe-to-toe on this

It was reported over the weekend that the CIA was secretly eavesdropping on the telephone conversations of Princess Diana on the night she died in Paris in 1997. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum, over at his National Review blog, thinks that this revelation makes some sort of point about the objections to President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens inside of the U.S.:

David Frum:


"So the Clinton administration was tapping Princess Diana's phones. Repeat after me: the Clinton administration. And of course there was no warrant. . . .

So question: when will we hear from all those valiant defenders of the civil liberties and personal privacy trampled underfoot by the fascist Bush administration? Slate magazine, you who boldly dared to compare Republicans to Nazis - where are you?"

more tripe from Frum

Greenwald:

If Frum tries hard enough, he may be able to find a difference between these two eavesdropping stories beyond the fact that one involves a (D) and the other involves an (R). How about . . . . . what the Clinton administration did is perfectly legal, while what the Bush administration did (and is doing) is a criminal offense under American law? Might that explain the acceptance of the former and the objections to the latter?

The "warrants" to which Frum refers are required under the law we call "FISA" only when (roughly speaking) the conversations to be eavesdropped on involve (a) a "U.S. person" who is (b) inside the U.S. Princess Diana, sitting in Paris, was neither (a) nor (b), and therefore, the CIA did not need a warrant under "FISA" to eavesdrop on those conversations. Thus, that eavesdropping was "legal."

More slapdown of Frum, and Frum replies at

www.glenngreenwald.blogspot.com

[judaspriestess]

19. that was a slap down

will these spin doctors ever learn?

[Joanne98]

22. My take on the Clinton involvement.....

If you read the stories on the in-fighting over the UN landmine treaty. You will find that Clinton wanted to sign it but the Pentagon didn't. I don't think Clinton had that much control over the Pentagon or, better put, the Military Industrial Complex. Democrats have been on the outs with them since JFK and the Bay of Pigs. Not to mention Vietnam and the anti-war movement that moved into the Dem party after the Chicago police riot.
You may also remember that Clinton went thru 5 CIA directors in 5 years. I heard him say once on c-span that the first files he asked for in 94 was the JFK assassination and the Roswell files and the CIA told him he couldn't see them. They just told him NO! He didn't say if he ever got to look at them but you could tell he was still pissed off.
You might also remember that it was Clinton's own FBI that wanted to wire Monica. Do you see my point. The Dems aren't really trusted by the "security" wings of the government. Hell. They changed Langley's name to the Bush Compound.
I hope somebody asks Clinton if he knew the US was wiretapping Di. I bet he didn't. So I say to FAUX News and all the rest of the RW bring it on. We need to have a serious discussion about the "lack of diversity" in the "security" wing of the government. They are only representing half of the country and that is UNACCEPTABLE. No taxation without respresention. If they want to stay a "Republicans Only" club then they can just get their budget money from the 30% or so of the Americans they like.

My take on Di. She was assassinated because of her landmine activety. Maybe the Pentagon intell killed her. It isn't like it's something they wouldn't do. If I had my way I would clean out the whole damn nest of snakes. Until then conspiracy theory rolls right along.

[shance]

20. Why do intelligence operatives spy? To blackmail otherwise innocent citizens.

That is why its illegal.

Because it's wrong.

[Rockstone]

21. Am I nuts?

I recall seeing her sitting up and talking in the live coverage after the accident. Did I imagine that, ot did anyone else see it?