The CIA and the death of Princess Diana

[Myra Bronstein]

Eh, I don't even know what to say:

Sat Dec 9, 10:02 PM ET

LONDON (AFP) - US intelligence listened to Princess Diana's telephone calls without British approval on the night she died in a Paris car accident, The Observer has said, citing findings of a long-awaited report.

The surveillance arm of the US government admitted to Lord John Stevens, who led an independent probe that confirms the crash was an accident, that it had listened to her conversations while she stayed at the Ritz Hotel, it said.

It failed to notify MI6, Britain's overseas intelligence agency, the weekly said, adding the issue will raise new questions about trans-Atlantic agreements on intelligence sharing.

Stevens was apparently assured that the 39 classified documents concerning her final conversations did not contain material that might help explain her death, The Observer said.

No explanation for the alleged eavesdropping was given.

Norman Baker, a member of parliament for the opposition Liberal Democrat party, was concerned about the news report when questioned by The Independent on Sunday.

"There have been rumours that Princess Diana was being bugged by the Americans, so I am not entirely surprised," he told the weekly.

"But it is a major constitutional issue. The question is whether the Americans were doing it themselves or the British government had outsourced it to the Americans to achieve deniability."

Diana, 36, her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, 42, and their chauffeur Henri Paul, 41, were killed in a car crash in a Paris underpass in the early hours of August 31, 1997. Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones survived.

The upshot of Lord Stevens' report, due to be published Thursday, is that the crash occurred because Paul was driving too fast while under the influence of alcohol, The Observer said, refuting theories of a murder plot.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061210/wl_af...us_061210030243

"ECHELON is a name used to describe a highly secretive world-wide signals intelligence and analysis network run by the UKUSA Community (otherwise described as the "Anglo-Saxon alliance") that has been reported by a number of sources including, in 2001, a committee of the European Parliament (EP report[1]). According to some sources ECHELON can capture radio and satellite communications, telephone calls, faxes, e-mails and other data streams nearly anywhere in the world and includes computer automated analysis and sorting of intercepts [2]. The EP committee, however, concluded that "the analysis carried out in the report has revealed that the technical capabilities of the system are probably not nearly as extensive as some sections of the media had assumed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

[John Simkin]

Eh, I don't even know what to say:

Sat Dec 9, 10:02 PM ET

LONDON (AFP) - US intelligence listened to Princess Diana's telephone calls without British approval on the night she died in a Paris car accident, The Observer has said, citing findings of a long-awaited report.

The surveillance arm of the US government admitted to Lord John Stevens, who led an independent probe that confirms the crash was an accident, that it had listened to her conversations while she stayed at the Ritz Hotel, it said.

It failed to notify MI6, Britain's overseas intelligence agency, the weekly said, adding the issue will raise new questions about trans-Atlantic agreements on intelligence sharing.

Stevens was apparently assured that the 39 classified documents concerning her final conversations did not contain material that might help explain her death, The Observer said.

No explanation for the alleged eavesdropping was given.

Norman Baker, a member of parliament for the opposition Liberal Democrat party, was concerned about the news report when questioned by The Independent on Sunday.

"There have been rumours that Princess Diana was being bugged by the Americans, so I am not entirely surprised," he told the weekly.

"But it is a major constitutional issue. The question is whether the Americans were doing it themselves or the British government had outsourced it to the Americans to achieve deniability."

Diana, 36, her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, 42, and their chauffeur Henri Paul, 41, were killed in a car crash in a Paris underpass in the early hours of August 31, 1997. Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones survived.

The upshot of Lord Stevens' report, due to be published Thursday, is that the crash occurred because Paul was driving too fast while under the influence of alcohol, The Observer said, refuting theories of a murder plot.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061210/wl_af...us_061210030243

"ECHELON is a name used to describe a highly secretive world-wide signals intelligence and analysis network run by the UKUSA Community (otherwise described as the "Anglo-Saxon alliance") that has been reported by a number of sources including, in 2001, a committee of the European Parliament (EP report[1]). According to some sources ECHELON can capture radio and satellite communications, telephone calls, faxes, e-mails and other data streams nearly anywhere in the world and includes computer automated analysis and sorting of intercepts [2]. The EP committee, however, concluded that "the analysis carried out in the report has revealed that the technical capabilities of the system are probably not nearly as extensive as some sections of the media had assumed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

This is an important developing story. Lord John Stevens, who is carrying out this inquiry on Princess Diana’s death, gave interviews to the UK media a few months ago, explaining that he had discovered some important new information on Diana’s death. He said that it had created a “new line of inquiry”. Then everything went quiet. The Stephens Report has yet to be published (expected in the next few days). The Diana inquest is due to start this week. Last week the BBC leaked selected aspects of the report to suggest there was no conspiracy to kill Diana. The main focus was on the fact that the driver Henri Paul was drunk at the time of the crash. This resulted in the BBC and most newspapers reporting that this proves that the death was not a conspiracy. This was the main theme of last night’s programme. See the producer’s blog here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006...piracies_1.html

The whole purpose of this exercise is to distract from the really important aspects of Stephens Report. This is the connections between the security services and her death. Remember, Mohamed al-Fayed, father of Dodi, Diana’s boyfriend who also died in the crash, believes that the couple were murdered by British agents. He believes that these agents worked for MI6 and the deaths were sanctioned by the state.

Personally, I don’t believe this is true and that she died in an accident. However, I suspect that Stephens has stumbled upon another linking conspiracy. For example, he has discovered that the CIA was bugging the conversations of Diana and Dodi. It is claimed this was without the knowledge of MI6.

There is also the French intelligence angle. It is believed that the Stephens Report will disclose the fact that Henri Paul was in the pay of the Directorate for Territorial Surveillance, the French equivalent of MI5. Secret accounts containing more than £100,000 in 14 banks were found across France. On the night that he died Paul was found with £2,000 in cash on him. Evidence suggests he may have met his 'handler', a senior official in the security services, that evening.

Henri Paul was portrayed in the press as a boozy no-hoper. Yet his autopsy betrayed none of the liver damage associated with heavy drinking. Then there is Paul’s girlfriend, a 25 year old Moroccan student. She told police that Paul hardly drank.

Paul, like Lee Harvey Oswald, was working for the intelligence services, before his death. The inquiry, like the Warren Commission, turned him into a patsy. The truth of the matter is far from clear. The one advantage we have over the JFK assassination, is that unlike the Kennedy family, Mohamed al-Fayed is determined to get to the truth. He has the money to make that happen. For example, some aspects of the mass media, for example, the Daily Express, are willing to print details of his conspiracy theories.

[Ed Sherry]

There were many strange events surrounding the death of Princess Diana.

1. The U.S. TV show Hardcopy had a newly married couple that played their home video while they were staying in Paris that night at the Ritz Hotel. The video showed that the white Fiat Uno took off at a high rate of speed right after the limo driven by Henri Paul departed, leaving by a back door of the Ritz Hotel. There was no doubt that a white Fiat Uno exists, based on this TV show videotape, which I watched live. The car was found later, but had been repainted, and is now in a container located in a secure storage company according to a BBC broadcast.

2. Just prior to leaving the hotel, Henri Paul was seen walking in a straight line along the corridor of the hotel, he did not appear to be drunk at all. He walked normally, in my opinion. Paul was found later to be an informant for MI6 while working for the Ritz Hotel, having many bank accounts totalling over $100,000.00 deposited recently.

3. The bodyguard, Trevor Reese Jones strapped himself into the seat with the safety belt. This is against the rules of bodyguards, who must be ready to respond to the slightest problem. The driver was correctly strapped in.

4. The limousine was stolen several months prior to the "accident", but recovered. Could some remote control device have been installed in order to accellerate the vehicle out of control while it was in the tunnel?

5. There was a flash photo showing all occupants in the car just before the crash. Who took this photo, and was the bright flash part of the plot to assassinate the Princess as detailed by former MI6 employee Richard Tomlinson, author of The Big Breach" 2000, published by Narodny Variant Publishers, Moscow, Russia who said that the plot was identical with a plot that he remembered seeing while working at MI6, during a vist to Geneva, to assassinate Slobodan Milosevic in a tunnel, replete with a bright flash to disorient and blind the driver.

Ironically, Tomlinson had booked a series of flights from New Zealand, where his hotel room was raided, and at New York's JFK airport, he was refused entry to the United States and deported...rather fortuitously, as Tomlinson's original itinerary had seen him due to leave the U.S. on Swissair Flight #SR111 on 2 September 1998, which plunged into the Atlantic shortly after takeoff.

6. Affadavit. http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=5750

7. New witness saw Fiat Driver kill Diana. http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=43122

8. Rather than examine the vehicle in detail, it was loaded onto a tow truck immediately after Trevor Reese Jones was removed. One hour later, at 4am, the tunnel was cleaned by street sweepers that sprayed the walls. By 4:30am, the tunnel was opened to traffic. There was never an investigation of the crime scene intact. Patrick Chauvel was a local photographer on the scene that was not believed by local police. Eric Petel, 26 was on his motorcycle when he was overtaken by the Mercedes as he approached the tunnel, and was the first on the scene. He moved Diana's head forward, and realized that it was Princess Diana. He went to the nearest police station but was ignored, handcuffed and moved to the Paris Police Station. An officer told him quietly "You had better not make yourself known." This senior officer then set him free. Abridged from a book, Diana: Death of a Goddess, by @ David Cohen 2004, published by Century.

9. Nov 2, 2002, The Guardian had a front page article "What the Butler said: "The Queen came through for me". Paul Burrell, the former royal butler was cleared of all charges of theft against members of the royal family. Allegedly, there were plans to call Prince Charles and Prince William as witnesses. The Queen told Paul that there are dark forces out there.

10. July 22, 2006, the 60 year old Royal Coroner, Michael Burgess quit, unexpectedly.

11. Princess Diana wrote a letter to Paul Burrell 10 months before her death stating that her husband wanted to see her dead in a car crash. He claimed in a book that Diana believed that the brakes of her car would be tampered with. She wrote: "This phase of my life is the most dangerous."

12. In the Sunday Express, Aug. 15, 2004, the parents of the chauffeur who drove Princess Diana to her death claimed a court order for new alcohol and drugs blood test would prove a "farce", because the samples for analysis were not their son's. Henri Paul's father, Jean said: Henri's blood samples have vanished somewhere between one lab and another."

13. The ambulance took 1 hour and 10 minutes to travel to the hospital. (3 miles) Although an embalming was not allowed in France for a British citizen, she was embalmed from the waist up by Professor Lecomte in the hours after her death. The owner of the White Fiat Uno died under mysterious circumstances.

14. Henri Paul's body showed a carbon monoxide level of 20.7 percent, which would have rendered him incapable of walking, let alone driving. Why did French Police say within 24 hours of the crash that Paul was twice the legal drink driving limit before the body samples had been analyzed?

15. Why were Paul's family stopped from carrying out their own Post Mortem examination? Why was the evidence of witness Eric Petel ignored? Why was the traffic police investigation report not included in the official inquiry report? Why did the police say that the car's speedometer was stuck at 120 mph? Mercedes said that the speedometer would have reverted to zero, something that the police later conceded.

16. http://www.rumormillnews.com/clyd.htm Documents detail plot to murder Princess Diana.

[Myra Bronstein]

Eh, I don't even know what to say:

Sat Dec 9, 10:02 PM ET

LONDON (AFP) - US intelligence listened to Princess Diana's telephone calls without British approval on the night she died in a Paris car accident, The Observer has said, citing findings of a long-awaited report.

The surveillance arm of the US government admitted to Lord John Stevens, who led an independent probe that confirms the crash was an accident, that it had listened to her conversations while she stayed at the Ritz Hotel, it said.

It failed to notify MI6, Britain's overseas intelligence agency, the weekly said, adding the issue will raise new questions about trans-Atlantic agreements on intelligence sharing.

Stevens was apparently assured that the 39 classified documents concerning her final conversations did not contain material that might help explain her death, The Observer said.

No explanation for the alleged eavesdropping was given.

Norman Baker, a member of parliament for the opposition Liberal Democrat party, was concerned about the news report when questioned by The Independent on Sunday.

"There have been rumours that Princess Diana was being bugged by the Americans, so I am not entirely surprised," he told the weekly.

"But it is a major constitutional issue. The question is whether the Americans were doing it themselves or the British government had outsourced it to the Americans to achieve deniability."

Diana, 36, her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, 42, and their chauffeur Henri Paul, 41, were killed in a car crash in a Paris underpass in the early hours of August 31, 1997. Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones survived.

The upshot of Lord Stevens' report, due to be published Thursday, is that the crash occurred because Paul was driving too fast while under the influence of alcohol, The Observer said, refuting theories of a murder plot.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061210/wl_af...us_061210030243

"ECHELON is a name used to describe a highly secretive world-wide signals intelligence and analysis network run by the UKUSA Community (otherwise described as the "Anglo-Saxon alliance") that has been reported by a number of sources including, in 2001, a committee of the European Parliament (EP report[1]). According to some sources ECHELON can capture radio and satellite communications, telephone calls, faxes, e-mails and other data streams nearly anywhere in the world and includes computer automated analysis and sorting of intercepts [2]. The EP committee, however, concluded that "the analysis carried out in the report has revealed that the technical capabilities of the system are probably not nearly as extensive as some sections of the media had assumed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

This is an important developing story. Lord John Stevens, who is carrying out this inquiry on Princess Diana’s death, gave interviews to the UK media a few months ago, explaining that he had discovered some important new information on Diana’s death. He said that it had created a “new line of inquiry”. Then everything went quiet. The Stephens Report has yet to be published (expected in the next few days). The Diana inquest is due to start this week. Last week the BBC leaked selected aspects of the report to suggest there was no conspiracy to kill Diana. The main focus was on the fact that the driver Henri Paul was drunk at the time of the crash. This resulted in the BBC and most newspapers reporting that this proves that the death was not a conspiracy. This was the main theme of last night’s programme. See the producer’s blog here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006...piracies_1.html

The whole purpose of this exercise is to distract from the really important aspects of Stephens Report. This is the connections between the security services and her death. Remember, Mohamed al-Fayed, father of Dodi, Diana’s boyfriend who also died in the crash, believes that the couple were murdered by British agents. He believes that these agents worked for MI6 and the deaths were sanctioned by the state.

Personally, I don’t believe this is true and that she died in an accident. However, I suspect that Stephens has stumbled upon another linking conspiracy. For example, he has discovered that the CIA was bugging the conversations of Diana and Dodi. It is claimed this was without the knowledge of MI6.

There is also the French intelligence angle. It is believed that the Stephens Report will disclose the fact that Henri Paul was in the pay of the Directorate for Territorial Surveillance, the French equivalent of MI5. Secret accounts containing more than £100,000 in 14 banks were found across France. On the night that he died Paul was found with £2,000 in cash on him. Evidence suggests he may have met his 'handler', a senior official in the security services, that evening.

Henri Paul was portrayed in the press as a boozy no-hoper. Yet his autopsy betrayed none of the liver damage associated with heavy drinking. Then there is Paul’s girlfriend, a 25 year old Moroccan student. She told police that Paul hardly drank.

Paul, like Lee Harvey Oswald, was working for the intelligence services, before his death. The inquiry, like the Warren Commission, turned him into a patsy. The truth of the matter is far from clear. The one advantage we have over the JFK assassination, is that unlike the Kennedy family, Mohamed al-Fayed is determined to get to the truth. He has the money to make that happen. For example, some aspects of the mass media, for example, the Daily Express, are willing to print details of his conspiracy theories.

Thank you John. I've been eager for a Brit to weigh in on this.

Is this the kind of story that people are talking about widely over there?

How suspicious is the typical Joe... or Nigel about the circumstances of Di's death?

The news management is pretty amusing as you've indicated. Presumably they knew the bugging of Lady Di's phone would be a bombshell, so they're busy assuring us there was no conspiracy.

So if Paul was a patsy and there's all this weirdness with phone bugs, and there has been some cover-up, I'd be interested in your reasons for deciding her death was just an accident.

I'm getting pretty convinced otherwise.

[Myra Bronstein]

Why did my title get changed and my subtitle removed?

I did not name this thread "The CIA and the death of Princess Diana."

[John Simkin]

Why did my title get changed and my subtitle removed?

I did not name this thread "The CIA and the death of Princess Diana."

The CIA instructed me to do it. (By the way, did any members send you information after you requested details of my being a CIA agent?).

I often change titles in order that members have a better idea of what the thread is about. This will then be added to the index system so that new members can discover what is available. Your posting caused particular problems as it was posted in the wrong section. Of course, it has nothing to do with the JFK assassination unless it is linked to the role that the CIA play in the cover-up of assassinations.

See the Conspiracies section for debates on Diana's death.

[Myra Bronstein]

Why did my title get changed and my subtitle removed?

I did not name this thread "The CIA and the death of Princess Diana."

The CIA instructed me to do it. (By the way, did any members send you information after you requested details of my being a CIA agent?).

I often change titles in order that members have a better idea of what the thread is about. This will then be added to the index system so that new members can discover what is available. Your posting caused particular problems as it was posted in the wrong section. Of course, it has nothing to do with the JFK assassination unless it is linked to the role that the CIA play in the cover-up of assassinations.

See the Conspiracies section for debates on Diana's death.

Ah, I see. Thank you.

Nope, didn't get a reply to my attempt to initiate a dialogue on said subject.

I was crushed.

[Dawn Meredith]

Why did my title get changed and my subtitle removed?

I did not name this thread "The CIA and the death of Princess Diana."

The CIA instructed me to do it. (By the way, did any members send you information after you requested details of my being a CIA agent?).

I often change titles in order that members have a better idea of what the thread is about. This will then be added to the index system so that new members can discover what is available. Your posting caused particular problems as it was posted in the wrong section. Of course, it has nothing to do with the JFK assassination unless it is linked to the role that the CIA play in the cover-up of assassinations.

See the Conspiracies section for debates on Diana's death.

Ah, I see. Thank you.

Nope, didn't get a reply to my attempt to initiate a dialogue on said subject.

I was crushed.

Myra:

Did you seriously think John was CIA? If so why would you want to be on a forum run by a CIA agent? (An obvious queston I believe).

BTW I too believe Diana was murdered. Been following this case from the start.

Dawn

[Myra Bronstein]

Why did my title get changed and my subtitle removed?

I did not name this thread "The CIA and the death of Princess Diana."

The CIA instructed me to do it. (By the way, did any members send you information after you requested details of my being a CIA agent?).

I often change titles in order that members have a better idea of what the thread is about. This will then be added to the index system so that new members can discover what is available. Your posting caused particular problems as it was posted in the wrong section. Of course, it has nothing to do with the JFK assassination unless it is linked to the role that the CIA play in the cover-up of assassinations.

See the Conspiracies section for debates on Diana's death.

Ah, I see. Thank you.

Nope, didn't get a reply to my attempt to initiate a dialogue on said subject.

I was crushed.

Myra:

Did you seriously think John was CIA? If so why would you want to be on a forum run by a CIA agent? (An obvious queston I believe).

BTW I too believe Diana was murdered. Been following this case from the start.

Dawn

Actually, I hadn't thought about John being CIA. Then John himself posted the question (rather ironically I suppose) in his thread asking who on the forum was claiming he was CIA. In that thread he said some things that made me uncomfortable, so it planted a tiny seed. Then when he continued doing small things (we all do small things along similar lines) I decided to flat out call upon the supposed claimant (special lawyer jargon just for you) and hear them out. I did it overtly 'cause I'm not a covert kinda person.

But as things evolve, more and more I think it's quite a ludicrous idea that John would be a spook. On one hand he should be aware that when he takes an issue public as he did, it could end up planting the idea in more people's heads. On the other hand I think his overall handling of it in an up-front way was wise.

He certainly isn't being singled out in general though. He is just the only person to post a thread like that. No one should be above the suspicion that they could have an alternative agenda IMO, at least initially. And I'm still in the "initially" stage, given that I don't really know anyone here.

As far as why a spook would run such a forum, I think that was addressed in John's thread and I posted my theories there. But to summarize, I think there are many reasons including: to identify researchers and keep tabs on them, to slyly intimidate them (mentioning the lengths the spooks go to discourage/damage researchers can be a helpful warning or a sly indirect threat), spreading disinformation (one of us could accept some info without double checking it and end up descrediting ourselves), and so on. Many reasons. Again, I think John offers too much excellent info to fall in that last category. I'm just addressing the theoretical question.

Regarding Diana, how significant do you think this revelation about the NSA/CIA bugging her phones is?

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Myra

Regarding Diana, how significant do you think this revelation about the NSA/CIA bugging her phones is?

It is very hard to know how significant it is at this juncture. Depends on why they were monitering her. Maybe they moniter all fromer spouses of royalty; why I could not fathom. Maybe Diana was onto something. She certainly predicted her own death, including the manner, only six months prior to it being a reality. Perhaps her killers were reading her diary and had her monitered. I just think there are so many suspicious things in this case that this new NSA/CIA bugging revelation could be some diversion away from who killed her. Motive, means, opportunity.

I also believe that British intelligence and US intelligence are joined at the hip.

Dawn

[Jack White]

Myra wrote:

"As far as why a spook would run such a forum, I think that was addressed in John's thread and I posted my theories there. But to summarize, I think there are many reasons including: to identify researchers and keep tabs on them, to slyly intimidate them (mentioning the lengths the spooks go to discourage/damage researchers can be a helpful warning or a sly indirect threat), spreading disinformation (one of us could accept some info without double checking it and end up descrediting ourselves), and so on. Many reasons. Again, I think John offers too much excellent info to fall in that last category. I'm just addressing the theoretical question."

I have already said that I pretty much agree that it is unlikely that John is CIA,

though three anonymous researchers have indicated to me that they believe so.

As far as Myra's comment above, I agree. The forum has provided an important

tool to discredit the research of Jack White, with the forum administrator constantly

berating me with terms like "poisonous old man". It provides a vehicle to about

six obvious provocateurs to attack me; several of them were banished from the

DellaRosa forum for identical tactics.

I must again quote Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, who once told me in a phone conversation

"YOU ARE THE RESEARCHER THE CIA FEARS MOST, BECAUSE YOU ANALYZE PHOTOS,

AND YOUR WORK IS EASILY UNDERSTOOD BY ORDINARY PEOPLE." He said I would

be attacked many ways because my research is so effective and easy for people

to judged for themselves, whereas most people are too lazy to analyze documents

and evidence. I have no doubt that the purpose of provocateurs on the forum is

sponsored by the CIA, the one major SURVIVING participant in the JFK conspiracy.

I do not know whether John is a witting or unwitting participant in these ad hominem

attacks. It is possible that he is an unwitting recruit. It is also possible that the forum

is used as a LIMITED HANGOUT to get certain information to researchers in a credible

manner, and is using John as a respected CONDUIT for disinfo...such as any information

leading to Cubans, Mafia, etc. It is possible that even true info is being planted in a

credible manner to point to ROGUE ELEMENTS of the agency, such as Hunt, et al in

preparation for a time when they are all dead, and then they will be hung out to dry

as "rogue participants".

I repeat that I do not suspect John, because much of his great info seems too

useful and credible to be a limited hangout, and he seems on the level. If there

is a fox in the henhouse, there is another suspect of the vulpine variety.

Jack

Edited December 11, 2006 by Jack White

[Christopher Hall]

Wiretapping Princess Diana is representative of our national intelligence and security priorities during the Clinton/Gore/Reno years.

We spent more money pursuing Bill Gates and Microsoft than we did trying to find and eliminate UBL and AQ.

I am sure that Hoover is smiling down (or, more likely, up) at this program.

[Pat Speer]

Wiretapping Princess Diana is representative of our national intelligence and security priorities during the Clinton/Gore/Reno years.

We spent more money pursuing Bill Gates and Microsoft than we did trying to find and eliminate UBL and AQ.

I am sure that Hoover is smiling down (or, more likely, up) at this program.

Christopher, if you have the relative figures cited above, please provide them. I am very skeptical they spent even ten percent as much on Gates as they did Bin Laden. I, for one, wish they'd spent more energy going after Gates. It may have helped prevent the actions of Enron etc, and the subsequent theft of hundreds of billions of dollars from the American public by criminal businessman.

[Myra Bronstein]

Wiretapping Princess Diana is representative of our national intelligence and security priorities during the Clinton/Gore/Reno years.

We spent more money pursuing Bill Gates and Microsoft than we did trying to find and eliminate UBL and AQ.

I am sure that Hoover is smiling down (or, more likely, up) at this program.

Christopher, if you have the relative figures cited above, please provide them. I am very skeptical they spent even ten percent as much on Gates as they did Bin Laden. I, for one, wish they'd spent more energy going after Gates. It may have helped prevent the actions of Enron etc, and the subsequent theft of hundreds of billions of dollars from the American public by criminal businessman.

If Microsoft isn't a monopoly then nothing is. They were about to be broken up, and should have been broken up, by the Clinton justice department until, viola, stolen election. Bill Gates' legacy is safe.

No wonder Gates has the Bush entourage over to his joint East of Seattle every few months. People in Bellevue can't even turn around without tripping over the Heir Bush scuttling off to get his payoff from Heir Gates. Oh, and of course the taxpayers foot the bill each time he goes to Gates'--or anyplace--hat in hand.

Predatory corporations are in fact a much bigger threat to this supposed democracy than mythical terra-ists. Especially given that 911 was an inside job done by the "gov't" for the benefit of large corporations. Clearly Clinton's priorities were in the right place. And there were 8 years of peace and prosperity as a result.

The Blame-Clinton operatives always seem to forget that part.

[Ed Sherry]

Maira Oliveira - All Headline News Reporter

London, England (BANG) - A key witness in the inquiry into the death of Britain's Princess Diana recently claimed police threatened him to change his evidence.

Jeweler Alberto Repossi - who claims he sold Diana's lover Dodi Al Fayed an engagement ring the day before the couple were killed in a car crash in Paris on August 31, 1997 - alleges he was put under pressure by investigators to retract the statement he gave to Lord Stevens, who is leading the inquiry.

There is speculation that investigators did not want evidence that Diana and Dodi were to become engaged to be made public, as it would fuel conspiracy theories championed by Dodi's father Mohammed Al Fayed that the princess was murdered as part of a secret plot to prevent her from marrying a Muslim.

Repossi told Britain's Daily Express newspaper, "These are things which I am absolutely certain about. They warned me if anyone lied to Lord Stevens - and anyone could include the prime minister or even the secret service - then he had the power to get people sent to prison.

He added, "They kept repeating the warnings of the risk to my reputation and the bad press coverage I would get. But despite all this, I was not prepared to change what I'd said before because it was the truth."

Repossi's testimony - backed up by receipts and CCTV footage - reveals Dodi and Diana picked a $305,000 emerald and diamond ring from a range of engagement bands called "Did-Moi Oui" which means "Tell Me Yes" at his Monte Carlo jewelry store in August 1997.

Dodi - the son of Harrods owner, Mohammad Al Fayed - asked for the ring to be sent to Repossi's Paris branch so he could collect it on August 30.

Repossi said, "I strongly support any attempt to determine exactly what caused this terrible tragedy. Until now I thought I could play my part by co-operating fully with the inquiry. But my treatment during the interviews has convinced me that they are not interested in establishing the truth."

He continued, "My real concern is that attempts were certainly made to get me to change what I knew to be the truth. I believe they were doing this in order to support theories or conclusions they had already arrived at before they saw me. They only seemed interested in trying to show me I was lying."

The investigation is expected to conclude that the crash was an accident due to driver Henri Paul being under the influence of alcohol and driving over the speed limit.