Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: While bin laden planned and carried out attacks clinton was bugging Princess Di

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408

    While bin laden planned and carried out attacks clinton was bugging Princess Di

    [QUOTE][B]Princess DI Bugged By US Secret Service Claims British Report

    December 11, 2006 8:52 a.m. EST[/B]

    Maira Oliveira - News Room Administrators Reporter
    London, UK (BANG) - Britain's Princess Diana was being bugged by the US Secret Service on the night she died.

    Lord Stevens' report into the deaths of Diana and her lover Dodi Al Fayed is to be published on Thursday (12.14.06) and reveals that the princess was under surveillance from American spies.

    The report - which cost $3,900,00 (?2 million) - states that the US Secret Service was bugging Diana's telephone conversations from her hotel room in the Paris Ritz on 31 August 1997, without approval of Britain's MI6.

    Lord Stevens is reported to have been assured that classified documents detailing the princess' final conversations did not reveal anything that might help explain her death.

    The report is also expected to conclude that Diana's driver Henri Paul was three times over the French drink-drive limit and speeding when the car crashed in the tunnel.

    Former commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Stevens, who has headed the inquiry for three years, is expected to dismiss conspiracy theories that the princess was pregnant and died as a result of an MI6 plot.

    The report's findings are sure to come as a disappointment to Dodi's father, Mohamed Al Fayed, who has repeatedly claimed that the deaths were part of a plot to stop a pregnant Diana from marrying her Muslim lover.

    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005818964[/url]

    unfuqinbelievable.....on second thought just par for the course....

  2. #2
    Bored today?

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    this from the same b!tch who constantly whined about the NSA eavesdropping program against terrorists in this nation on this board...but hey- terrorists are people too....

    [QUOTE=cr726]Bored today?[/QUOTE]

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,021
    [IMG]http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/mypetgoat.jpg[/IMG]

  5. #5
    This article is a waste of time.
    Do you ever stay on topic?



    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]this from the same b!tch who constantly whined about the NSA eavesdropping program against terrorists in this nation on this board...but hey- terrorists are people too....[/QUOTE]

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    the topic is eavesdropping...I'm just pointing out what a hypocritical b!tch you are...

    [QUOTE=cr726]This article is a waste of time.
    Do you ever stay on topic?[/QUOTE]

  7. #7
    This article has nothing to do with the NSA topic whatsoever. I am still trying to figure out why a self-proclaimed track star thinks he is tough?


    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]the topic is eavesdropping...I'm just pointing out what a hypocritical b!tch you are...[/QUOTE]

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Jersey Shore
    Posts
    3,073
    Clinton was the biggest loser/joke/liar/embarrassment to the United States I can ever remember for a President. I mean, 8 years later Lay Leno still has 1 Bill Clinton jab per monologue per night. That's sad.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    don't hurt yourself trying to hard....

    [QUOTE=cr726]This article has nothing to do with the NSA topic whatsoever. I am still trying to figure out why a self-proclaimed track star thinks he is tough?[/QUOTE]

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,021
    [QUOTE=sackdance99]That's sad.[/QUOTE]

    Not as sad as watching some crazy person misrepresent Jesus on a Jets fan website..

  11. #11
    Did you finally read your arrogant posts? You namecalling Big Man.


    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]don't hurt yourself trying to hard....[/QUOTE]

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    classic...this from the same clown whose challenged people on this board to meet in person so as to fight....

    [QUOTE=cr726]Did you finally read your arrogant posts? You namecalling Big Man.[/QUOTE]

  13. #13
    JetMoses wanted to fight me. I simply explained to you or any other poster who would of met me and spoke in person, you would not be so quick to name call and act tough. I stand by those words.


    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]classic...this from the same clown whose challenged people on this board to meet in person so as to fight....[/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    There are now three or more articles stating the U.K believes that the CIA or the NSA bugged her phones. These articles are BS.


    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]the topic is eavesdropping...I'm just pointing out what a hypocritical b!tch you are...[/QUOTE]

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    why aren't you lunatic leftists crying for the invasion of this innocent woman's civil liberties (never mind an innocent American businessman) the way you stuck up for the terrorists who were targeted by the NSA surviellience program??

    why isn't the NY Slimes offering 20-pages of coverage on this infringement of privacy by the clinton administration???

    why are you lunatic leftists such fuqin hypocrites??

    [QUOTE=cr726]There are now three or more articles stating the U.K believes that the CIA or the NSA bugged her phones. These articles are BS.[/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE][B]DIANA BUGGED FOR CALLS TO A BIG APPLE TYCOON
    By ANDY GELLER[/B]

    December 12, 2006 -- U.S. intelligence agencies bugged Princess Diana's phone because of her relationship with Big Apple buyout bigwig Ted Forstmann, according to a bombshell report yesterday.

    In fact, Di was forced to abandon plans to vacation at the handsome billionaire's Southampton home in the summer of 1997 because - for reasons that weren't immediately clear - the agencies considered the vacation a security risk, London's Evening Standard newspaper said.

    As a result, Diana ended up going to Paris with Dodi Fayed, whom she had been dating for several months. The pair died there in a car crash Aug. 31, 1997, while trying to outrun the paparazzi.

    The British media had reported that U.S. intelligence agents bugged Diana's phone - without the permission of their British counterparts - up until the night she died.

    The Evening Standard says the new details of the bugging are contained in a report, due to be released Thursday, by London's former top cop, Lord John Stevens, who conducted a $3 million investigation into Diana's death.

    The princess and Forstmann, head of the Forstmann Little buyout and investment firm, became good friends after meeting at a dinner party in the early '90s.

    A source familiar with the situation told The Post that in 1997, Diana called the 66-year-old billionaire and said she was thinking about renting a summer home near his mansion in Southampton.

    She asked about activities for her two sons, Princes William and Harry. Forstmann replied that he would set her up with a good broker who could find her a place, the source said. But two weeks later, the source said, Diana called up and said the plan was off.

    "They won't let me come. They say it's a security risk," the source quoted the princess as saying.

    Diana did not spell out exactly what the problem was, and the source said yesterday, "What about Southampton is a security risk?"

    In its report, the Evening Standard said the princess had originally hoped that she and her sons might be able stay at Forstmann's mansion for a week.


    But since she was traveling with the princes, the trip had to be cleared by Britain's security services. After the U.S. intelligence agencies passed along to the Brits what they had learned from tapping Diana's phone, the British security services vetoed the princess' plans "because of concerns about the security surrounding the billionaire's home or perhaps a possible threat from elsewhere," the newspaper said.

    The Evening Standard also reported that the U.S. spy agencies have a number of secret files on Diana and her closest associates.

    The files, which include reports from foreign intelligence agencies - including Britain's MI-5 and MI-6 - come under both the top-secret and secret categories, it said.

    [I]The files can't be released because it would cause "exceptionally grave damage to the national security," the paper said. [/I] (get a reporter from the NY Slimes over there now)

    The newspaper did not spell out which U.S. intelligence agencies were involved in the bugging. The Secret Service, the CIA and the National Security Agency have denied tapping Diana's phone.

    [B]U.S. and British media have speculated that the princess was targeted by the spy agencies because she was an activist who campaigned against such things as the use of land mines.

    Forstmann, who also owns the sports talent agency IMG, is a Republican who considered running against Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2000. [/B]

    Diana's former butler, Paul Burrell, claims the princess wanted to marry Forstmann, believing he would run for - and capture - the presidency and she would ride into White House as the new Jackie Kennedy.

    Why Forstmann might be considered a security risk is not clear.

    In 2002 - five years after Diana's death - he was sued by the state of Connecticut after one of its investments lost $2 billion. Two years later, the suit ended in a draw. A jury said Forstmann should have exercised more caution but awarded not one penny to the state.

    In his report on Diana's death in Paris' Pont d'Alma tunnel, Lord Stevens is expected to say the princess died in an accident caused because their driver, Henri Paul - who had three times the French legal limit of alcohol in his blood - was driving too fast.

    [/QUOTE]
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 12-12-2006 at 09:44 AM.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]why aren't you lunatic leftists crying for the invasion of this innocent woman's civil liberties (never mind an innocent American businessman) the way you stuck up for the terrorists who were targeted by the NSA surviellience program??

    why isn't the NY Slimes offering 20-pages of coverage on this infringement of privacy by the clinton administration???

    why are you lunatic leftists such fuqin hypocrites??[/QUOTE]
    Well most likely there was a warrant on the American businessman and Diana's conversations were heard on account of that. First of all you don't need a warrant to wiretap a foreigner but that was not that case here as Diana was not the target of the wiretap. She just happened to be talking to the target.

    Obviously a court had a good reason to give the warrant. No civil liberties violations so no reason for 15 pages in the [I]Slimes[/I].

    Surely reasonable people can see the difference. Unreasonable people scream foul.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Well most likely there was a warrant on the American businessman and Diana's conversations were heard on account of that. First of all you don't need a warrant to wiretap a foreigner but that was not that case here as Diana was not the target of the wiretap. She just happened to be talking to the target.

    Obviously a court had a good reason to give the warrant. No civil liberties violations so no reason for 15 pages in the [I]Slimes[/I].

    Surely reasonable people can see the difference. Unreasonable people scream foul.[/QUOTE]

    and blind hypocrites reason there must have been a warrant which justify's the tapping of innocent people for what is being reported as nothing more than political gain to this point...


    then again you are the same one who chimed in with "didn't Bush meet with Arafat?" in a different thread when responding to carter and clinton paying homage to the likes of castro, chavez, arafat, ho chi mihn- with nothing to back the statement- so it's easy to see how you try and justify things in your mind....

    yeh- that reasonably sums it up....
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 12-12-2006 at 10:29 AM.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]and blind hypocrites reason there must have been a warrant which justify's the tapping of innocent people for what is being reported as nothing more than political gain to this point...


    then again you are the same one who chimed in with "didn't Bush meet with Arafat?" in a different thread- with nothing to back it up- so it's easy to see how you justify things in your mind....

    yeh- that reasonably sums it up....[/QUOTE]
    Well govt should follow the law and to wiretap somebody you need a warrant so is it unreasonable to think there was a warrant? Is there any report out there saying there was no warrant?

    Didn't you read the article that you yourself posted that it was not one of the intelligence agencies that placed the wiretap. This businessman might have been part of a criminal investigation. Notice I said might. I have no clue. But nobody and nobody is saying there was NO warrant for that wiretap so your point of hypocricy is a ridiculous one and your headline is totally absurd. Puts you in the same boat as Bman for ridiculousness as a headline writer.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,642
    hehe - I thought that said "buggering" in the title...

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Well govt should follow the law and to wiretap somebody you need a warrant so is it unreasonable to think there was a warrant? Is there any report out there saying there was no warrant?

    Didn't you read the article that you yourself posted that it was not one of the intelligence agencies that placed the wiretap. This businessman might have been part of a criminal investigation. Notice I said might. I have no clue. But nobody and nobody is saying there was NO warrant for that wiretap so your point of hypocricy is a ridiculous one and your headline is totally absurd. Puts you in the same boat as Bman for ridiculousness as a headline writer.[/QUOTE]

    Absurd are the idiot assumptions reflected in your posts, which can't be backed up....

    Clinton spied on an innocent American it must be reasonable to assume there was a warrant....

    Carter/Clinton pay homage to terrorists/commies so it must be reasonable to assume Bush met with arafat....and so on and so on....

    none of which you can offer a shred of evidence to back up your point....but I'm sure you "heard" this somewhere ala michael moore-on in carters presidential box at the '04 DNC...

    it's just another way for you to rationalize things in your simple mind....
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 12-12-2006 at 11:12 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us