maybe he should have added his input here:
the report from scotland yard I believe will be released tomorrow. usa spy shops deny any involvement. isn't one of the elements of these agencies: disinformation? we will have to rendition a few for real facts(maybe).
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.?