Posted on 12/12/2006 2:03:45 PM PST by SirLinksalot
Did the Clinton Administration Engage in “Domestic Spying” Against Princess Diana?
What the new revelations could mean.
By Byron York
The first thing to remember in trying to evaluate reports that U.S. intelligence services wiretapped Princess Diana is that British press accounts can be notoriously unreliable. We’ll know more about the story on Thursday morning, when results of the Lord Stevens inquiry into Diana’s death are released to the public. But if the reports out now are accurate, the Diana case could raise questions for veterans of the Clinton administration similar to those facing the Bush administration today.
Some versions of the story say simply that the U.S., without consulting British intelligence, was monitoring Diana’s phone conversations in Paris on the night she died, in August 1997. If American intelligence did that, and if the conversations tapped were between Diana, who was a foreign national, and some other person who was also a foreign national, then the action, although perhaps needlessly antagonistic to the British, would not raise questions of whether the administration sought a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.
But the Evening Standard reports that American intelligence agencies “were bugging Princess Diana’s telephone over her relationship with a U.S. billionaire” — identified as American businessman Theodore Forstmann. That report suggests the surveillance took place over a period of some time. If that is accurate, then the story could be quite different.
Forstmann is what is known in the intelligence/legal world as a “U.S. person.” If there were a conversation between him, in the United States, and Diana, outside the United States, it would resemble, at least in structure, the conversations between people in the United States and those in foreign countries that have been at the center of the controversy over what President Bush calls the terrorist-surveillance program and what Democrats call “domestic spying.” (The difference, of course, would be that the Bush administration says it has listened to conversations involving people with known connections to a foreign enemy, al Qaeda; neither Diana nor Forstmann, a public-minded financier who was quite active in Republican politics, appears to fit a comparable description.)
If the Clinton administration did engage in surveillance of Diana/Forstmann, it is not clear if it was done with or without a warrant. “To get a FISA warrant, they would have had to believe that either Forstmann or Diana was an agent of a foreign power,” says one former Justice Department official. That, the official adds, would be an unlikely scenario. “To get a criminal warrant, they would have had to had a proceeding going on in which they got a judge to give them a warrant” — another unlikely scenario. “Or perhaps,” the official concludes, “the NSA did it.”
The National Security Agency released a statement last night saying, “NSA did not target Princess Diana’s communications.” A spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency told the Washington Post that any suggestion the CIA wiretapped Diana was “rubbish.” Neither statement seems to be a definitive denial.
If the Clinton administration did engage in surveillance of Princess Diana and Theodore Forstmann, without a warrant, it would appear to run contrary to statements made by former administration officials during the Bush warrantless-wiretap controversy. After the existence of the Bush program was made public last December, some high-ranking veterans of the Clinton administration said they had not engaged in similar efforts to by-pass FISA. “Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton-Gore administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law,” former Vice President Al Gore said.
The amendment to which Gore referred was an action by Congress that included physical break-ins under the FISA law, requiring the executive branch to seek a warrant before carrying out a break-in. Wiretaps were already covered by the law.
When Congress was considering the break-in measure, top Clinton administration officials argued that the president had the “inherent authority” to order such break-ins — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — on his own, without a warrant. Even after the administration agreed with Congress’s decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the FISA court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.
“The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,” Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the House Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994. Later, after Congress took action, Gorelick told Legal Times that, “Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority.”
Nevertheless, the law required that the administration seek a warrant if it intended to wiretap a U.S. person’s — in this case Forstmann’s — communications. The Clinton administration could have argued, as the Bush administration would later, that the president had the authority to do it on his own under certain circumstances, like the presence of a foreign enemy. But it’s hard to see how Diana and Forstmann would have fit that description, and in any event that is something Al Gore and other Clinton veterans say they never did.
— Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.
Hillary.
I'm sure she had a dossier on Lady Di.
If this is true, then we have a warped sense of priorities. Instead of spying on terrorists and regimes with potential WMD programs, we waste our resources on inane things like these....
Apparently by this time, Bill was bored with Monica.....and Princess Di was much cuter.
A horrible thought just struck me... what if Diana's boyfriend -- Dodi, an Egyptian, was an agent for the enemy ?
SCRAP THAT ... too many James Bond films :)
So...was Clinton wrong to fail to get a warrant...? If so, then there goes Bush's excuse.
Bill wanted nude pictures of the maid...
"While Clinton was spying on Di....Atta was learning to fly"
You can't hold X42 responsible for anything on the negative side of the ledger because, after all, he can't even decide on the definition of "IS".
So move on.....nothing here and besides it is BUSH's fault!!
Its pretty clear that Clinton wasn't spying on Di but rather spying on Forstman (who was a Republican donor by the way), Can you imagine the outrage if Bush was found spying on Democratic fund raisers.
Upon the death of the Princess of Wales in August
1997, the press noted in passing that Adnan Khassoghi
is the brother-in-law of Mohamed Al-Fayed, an Egyptian
intelligence operative ... also a business partner of
one El-Amira Atta, the father of the accused airline
hijacker. Fayed was a veteran of our little American
Pinay Circle.
Intelligence
sources in France and Israel have revealed that
evidence in their possession places Al-Fayed as a
member of a group of wealthy Arabs living in the
United Kingdom who have been engaged in the
clandestine funding of Hamas, Al Qaeda, and more
recently, the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade."
UK's Sunday Telegraph ran the story but was forced to
retract when it was flatly denied by Mohammed
Al-Fayed, who claimed that the newspaper had a
"vendetta" against him.
If the story is true, then Al-Fayed is allied with
terrorists on both sides of the Patriot Act, like his
brother-in-law.
2 snips from:
http://911review.org/Alex/Diana_Fayed_Adnan-K_CIA.html
Dodi, an Egyptian, was an agent for the enemy ?
bingo....daddy not dodi......plenty of reason to listen in, tho.....see post 14......more details at the link worth reading
(With the help of a certain current NY Senator??)
Exactly right re: Forstmann. Di had mentioned to
several friends her dream of marrying a wealthy
American with political ambitions and returning
to England as First Lady.
He is, which is why the Dems have been crying about his terrorist surveillance program.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.