TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Fascist Clinton Administration.

Fascist Clinton Administration.

so Clinton was tapping Princess Di's phones. thats right kids, CLINTON!

was she a terrorist? suspect enabler? was Dodi Fayid? no.

there was certainly no warrant so wtf?

c'mon yall lets hear the outrage. or will the moonbats give Clinton a pass on this as well?

Ahh, had to Google a little to find it:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_n...1968664,00.html

Indeed, this is disturbing to say the least. There's no excuse for this at all. I think this is a wee bit off the deep end, however:

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/200...iretap-program/

Regardless, if this has Clinton's direct orders on it then I think he should be held equally accountable in the same regard for that wiretapping as Bush should be for breaking FISA laws.

Feel any better?

This doesn't excuse the behavior, nor does it go past idle speculation, but I do think it's interesting:

quote:

It's not unusual for the intelligence services of friendly countries to undertake chores for each other that, for one reason or another, the other can't. The CIA is forbidden to spy on American citizens within the United States, for instance; the British might do the spying for the CIA, then, and give the CIA whatever it learns � and vice versa. The United States might do some spying in England that a British intelligence agency is forbidden to undertake, that is, and then turn over the results. But according to the news story, this was an American solo act; the British didn't know about the spying and, presumably, weren't being given whatever intelligence the spying produced. http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/10/193433.php

Because outside of this, I can't think of one serious reason why the Secret Service and the Clinton Admin. would want to be wiretapping Di. Anyone else?

Bush didn't break any FISA laws.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 \ Anyone else?

the only thing i can think of is that Clinton wanted to tap that ass, and tapping her phones was the next logical step towards that end.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Feel any better?

i'll feel better when your ilk starts calling for Clinton's arrest.

b/c if he indeed gave the order to tap her phones (which he had to have done because the S/S does nothing without executive approval) without warrant and without National Security protocols like Bush had, then he should be in handcuffs presently no if's ands or butts.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Bush didn't break any FISA laws.

Of course he didn't. That's why he abides by the 1979 statute set forth by Congress and continues to get all search warrants approved by the FISA courts.

How silly of me to forget.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i'll feel better when your ilk starts calling for Clinton's arrest. b/c if he indeed gave the order to tap her phones (which he had to have done because the S/S does nothing without executive approval) without warrant and without National Security protocols like Bush had, then he should be in handcuffs presently no if's ands or butts.

If that can be demonstrated with supporting evidence with Clinton's fingerprints, then I would agree.

I dont know if it's technically illegal under local US law to tap the phones of foreign nationals outside the states, even if theyre influential ones like HRH was.

Course, it is the diplomatic equivalent of taking a huge steaming crap on someones carpet, but thats generally what senior public servents in advisory positions are for.
They've got it down to a fine art

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith I dont know if it's technically illegal under local US law to tap the phones of foreign nationals outside the states, even if theyre influential ones like HRH was. Course, it is the diplomatic equivalent of taking a huge steaming crap on someones carpet, but thats generally what senior public servents in advisory positions are for. They've got it down to a fine art

Yeah, I'd personally like to know a bit more about this and the laws it may or may not break. Is there a difference between tapping the phones of another country versus tapping the phones of U.S. citizens as Bush is continuing to do? If so, then I guess this Administration has a double whammy - anyone remember the Bush Administration tapped the phones of some U.N. member(s) prior to the Iraq invasion? See if I can find that link somewhere.

Hmm, not local law, something a bit bigger apparently-

quote:

International law prohibits operations such as those allegedly mounted against the UN - whether the six members of the security council or the possible bugging of Mr Annan's office or the suspicious Mr Von Sponek - but it is frequently flouted. In theory, the 1961 Vienna convention on diplomatic relations states that the premises of a diplomatic mission "shall be inviolable", and agents of the host state cannot enter without permission.

sourced

James Bamford seems to have been the one doing most of the digging on the subject.

So there you go, it's illegal to tap UN members at least. Dont know about Diana, was she was considered to be a diplomat?
I also remember something of a stir about the current US administration doing it to UN weapons inspectors in Iraq somewhere.

Wasn't the majority of the outrage directed at the NSA for spying on US citizens as opposed to foreign nationals? I mean, that's the reason I was upset ...

Also her driver that fateful night was on france's
payroll. He was working for france's intelligence
service the equivilant of MI-5. Secret Service tapping,
her driver a french spy, and the recent russian spy
poisioning, it's like a Tom Clancy book or something.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.