Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Uh... Why Were We Spying on Princess Diana?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:00 PM
Original message
Uh... Why Were We Spying on Princess Diana?
I'm reading from a number of sources that the Clinton Administration was very actively spying on Princess Diana. Seems bizarre on the face of it - any thoughts on why this might have been?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. I guess b/c Britain wanted to spy on her, but didn't want it traced
to Buckingham Place and asked the CIA to keep tabs on her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. Probably the Dodi Al-Fayed connection
We don't trust those olive-skinned foreigners with our white women.

:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. Her anti-mine activities. I still don't 'get' that at all. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Treclo Donating Member (137 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. Anti-mine?
But that is a good thing, right? To be against land mines?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. But the US is not against land mines
We won't sign the treaty banning land mines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. We're against it so we can maintain the minefield between North and South Korea. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. Because the British authorities asked us to, so they could claim they were not?
Edited on Mon Dec-11-06 12:05 PM by WinkyDink
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. "We" weren't as citizens. The CIA was engaging in the eavesdropping.
Edited on Mon Dec-11-06 12:08 PM by shance
The CIA has been called the:

Capitalist/Corporatist
Invisible
Army
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. ECHELON, but they thought the Royalty was exempt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

The words "secret service" mean "intelligence service" in The Queen's English, not the "Secret Service" as it does in America.

They probably mean it was the NSA spying on her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
China_cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. After the divorce
Diana was no longer considered part of the 'Royalty'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Right and Clinton probably did not know
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. We easily forget that Clinton was a DLCer...
this program is technically not illegal under US law. In fact FISA allows it completely.

We can spy on anyone we choose, but they can also spy on us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. Terra - No wait, that was before there was terraist
Gee, I don't know!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. Clinton was interested in her?
I have no friggin clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JacksonWest Donating Member (561 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. I assume we spy on everybody
why is this coming to light now? Why would they make this information public?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monkey see Monkey Do Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. It's part of Lord Stevens inquiry which is due to be published on Thursday
As is the case with all these things, some of the contents were leaked in advance (in this case to the Observer newspaper).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JacksonWest Donating Member (561 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Ahhh.
Laziness on my part. It's amazing how the death of Princess Diana was a news story for a few days here-at least in my mind. But the Brits-it's one of the biggest things to have happened in their lifetime. very similar to JFK. I can never get my head around their fixation on royalty-or the preservation of royalty. To each their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crankie Avalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
10. Because she was one of those fuzzy peacenik-type celebrities.
Edited on Mon Dec-11-06 12:12 PM by Crankie Avalon
Trying to use one's celebrity to help poor people is often considered a political act by the entrenched and powerful and is regarded as an invitation for them to begin spying on such famous people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. I think the US spies on ALL people in position of national power
Having the ability to blackmail a movement or an entire nation country is a big asset in geopoliticks if you can get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinfoilinfor2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
14. I'm surprised
that this comes as a big surprise to anyone. I imagine all powerful people are on the list of CIA surveillance. And Princess Diana had power for a number of reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
19. They are trying too hard to
explain everything to everyone's satisfaction.... Did this not happen in 1997? Almost 10 years later they are still trying to clear the record.... I don't believe any of it... That is just me, what can I say? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
22. we should ask Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck, maybe they know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
24. It was probably a favor to Lyndon Larouche
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
25. Dodi's uncle is Adnan Khashoggi, the arms dealer n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC