Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Wiretaps and all of that
Posted by: McQ on Monday, December 11, 2006

And not a terrorist is sight:
American intelligence agencies were bugging Princess Diana's telephone over her relationship with a US billionaire, the Mail's sister paper has learned.

Evening Standard reports that she was even forced to abandon a planned holiday with her sons in the US with tycoon Teddy Forstmann on advice from secret services, who passed on their concerns to their British counterparts.

Both US and British intelligence then forced Diana to change her plans to stay with Mr Forstmann in the summer of 1997, saying it was too "dangerous" to take her sons there.
1997? Warrant?
The US secret service was monitoring Diana's friendship with the controversial financier Mr Forstmann for some weeks.
US Secret Service? Really?

I wonder what Osama was doing that day?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
1997? Warrant?
Um, is Princess Diana a United States citizen inside the united states?

She’s not, is she?

So... extremely lame comparison?

See, if you were still reading Glenn Greenwald, you’d have known not to even go there.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/9472/ Why the Secret Service needed to wiretap the Princesses phones is beyond me. Following the article I don’t see why Teddy Forstmann would be a Secret Service issue either. The only thing I can think of is the Secret Service assessed to many security issues in the Hamptons and passed that along to the Brits who canned the visit.
 
Written By: coaster
URL: http://
McQ, the suggestion to make haste to Greenwald’s is a good one — warrantless wiretapping of the British Diana in Paris is not a violation of U.S. law, assuming all laws applicable to complying with the requirements of the local country were met. I’ve not heard the French make a fuss about this, so it would seem to be kosher with them. I’d also be willing to bet that the UK’s M-15 was aware.

Anywya, I do wonder why it was happening, and suspect it may have to do with the Ay-rab boyfriend.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://inactivist.org/
FISA’s "foreign powers" exception only applies when "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." I’m pretty sure that isn’t the case when she’s apparently talking with Forstmann regularly.
 
Written By: Sean
URL: http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
I’d also be willing to bet that the UK’s M-15 was aware.
M-15? "Em-Fifteen"?

Are you sure you don’t mean MI-5?
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
McQ, the suggestion to make haste to Greenwald’s is a good one — warrantless wiretapping of the British Diana in Paris is not a violation of U.S. law ...
Actually I don’t give a good rip about whether or not it was legal or not, I’m simply tweaking those who cannot imagine how we can tolerate the horrific invasion of privacy listening in on phone calls which might have a terrorist at the other end but have no problem whatsoever with this sort of invasion of privacy.

Ack, not a US citizen ... who cares?

Thus the "And not a terrorist is sight" line to begin the post. I know, too minimalist. Too nuanced.

I also found it a useful story on which to question the priority of our intelligence gathering at that time when the administration in question was so "on-top" of it all.
Anyway, I do wonder why it was happening, and suspect it may have to do with the Ay-rab boyfriend.
Really? If that’s the case, then why dissuade her from vacationing with Forstmann? I mean if it was all about Dodi Fayed. Unless you buy into the conspiracy theory that Diana and Dodi were murdered by MI6 and US intel.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Dale, you are quite correct (and I feel stupid). It is MI-5.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://inactivist.org/
Really? If that’s the case, then why dissuade her from vacationing with Forstmann?
If they wanted more info on Fayed, isn’t that exactly what they would do?
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
Actually I don’t give a good rip about whether or not it was legal or not,
Well, that’s pretty peculiar, McQ. Are libertarians not supposed to care about the rule of law? And as I said, there are some protocols involving permission from the local govt., and I’ve not heard that these were not met.

I’m not a "privacy absolutist" and never pitched arguments against Bush’s FISA violations in those terms — nor, that I can recall, did Greenwald. This is purely a rule of law issue, and as long as there is judicial oversight as the law requires, then hey, eavesdrop on AQ suspects till the cows come home, I say.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://inactivist.org/
Well, that’s pretty peculiar, McQ. Are libertarians not supposed to care about the rule of law?
Try the whole sentence for context Mona.

As I said, the point wasn’t the legality, it was a tweak.
If they wanted more info on Fayed, isn’t that exactly what they would do?
Not unless she was actually informing on him and willing to wear a wire. They’d get much more info listening in on phone conversations and other communications rather than trying to monitor private conversations in private settings.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
With all due respect, and I seriously mean that.
Actually I don’t give a good rip about whether or not it was legal or not
is much more than a "tweak". It’s been your modus operandi for a long time.

And it’s why no reasonable individual would ever describe you as a libertarian.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
The US secret service was monitoring Diana’s friendship with the controversial financier Mr Forstmann for some weeks.
Mr Forstmann is a US citizen though right? And presumably from the above they targeted him and tapped his and Diana’s conversations. So how is this different exactly?
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
With all due respect, and I seriously mean that.

Actually I don’t give a good rip about whether or not it was legal or not
is much more than a "tweak"
Honestly you can’t be this deliberately dense, can you?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Mr Forstmann is a US citizen though right? And presumably from the above they targeted him and tapped his and Diana’s conversations. So how is this different exactly?
Whenever Forstmann was on U.S soil — citizen or not — FISA was in play. When he was not on U.S. soil, it wasn’t. FISA controls domestic eavesdropping and searches.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://inactivist.org/
citizen or not — FISA was in play
Not quite...FISA matters if the person is a citizen or "legal alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence."
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
And it’s why no reasonable individual would ever describe you as a libertarian.


uh-uh-uh..., he’s not a libertarian, he’s a miniarchist! wo-ho-ho-ho! Not ready for that twist, Davebo! Do not pass go! Do not collect two hundred dollars!



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
he’s not a libertarian, he’s a miniarchist!
*sigh*

Absolutely amazing.

It’s like trying to describe sex to a pair of two-year olds.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
For what its worth McQ, I saw the tweak in the original post, and ready to combat obtuseness, ventured into the comments. I see a better warrior is already here... and some not too surprising backtracking.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
It’s like trying to describe sex to a pair of two-year olds.
Are you sure that’s legal McQ?

*duck*
 
Written By: Bitter
URL: http://qando.net/
I thought we had to get warrants just in case while tapping a guy in Pakistan we accidentally overheard his discussions with the ACLU or with a US journalist or researcher?

Isn’t that what was being argued?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Isn’t that what was being argued?
AAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

(kills something)

No.
I thought we had to get warrants just in case while tapping an
American Citizen
in
America.

I have fixed your quote.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Okie fine and where was
Teddy Forstmann
American Citizen
On the day he was being monitored talking to Diana, former Princess of England, Scotland and Wales and dangerous foreigner.

It kills me that anyone would find tapping this conversation as reasonable, any where, any time. Unless you think maybe Princess Di was discussing making a terrorist assault on the US as one of her causes to help humanity.
I guess being a former princess, and being a rich guy, their privacy was no longer protected any where.

Hey guys, maybe you can ask and see if they have any video footage of her romping around topless, you know, more excellent use of United States Government funds and United States Government equipment.

"National" Enquirer takes on a whole new meaning in this context.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider