McDowell Controversy

Tuars

Sponge Bob wrote:

He did not target the centre per se, only the strong silent Frank

He targeted the CPI via Chuck Feeney. Chuck Feeney requested the CPI to remove Frank Connolly. They refused and he withdrew the funding.

If the CPI had acceded to Feeney's request wouldn't their independence have also been compromised?

It's looking now like the CPI is finding funds elsewhere and will be able to continue with Frank Connolly remaining as its executive director. What is the next move in defence of our national security? Is it time to call in Willie O'Dea yet?

Tuars

Tuars wrote:

He targeted the CPI via Chuck Feeney. Chuck Feeney requested the CPI to remove Frank Connolly. They refused and he withdrew the funding.

Thats very very subjective.Chuck Feeney didnt withdraw funding untill he did a thorough investigation on Connolly.
If Connolly came out of that investigation clean, the funding would still be there.

If the CPI had acceded to Feeney's request wouldn't their independence have also been compromised?

I doubt now that Feeney wants to get involved in whatever the CPI investigated.
But if you want to make that kind of argument, you may aswell say that the CPI are compromised by accepting Feeneys money anyway as it does have conditions.
They're compromised only because they cant hire someone who conflicts with the ethos of American Philantropies.

It's looking now like the CPI is finding funds elsewhere and will be able to continue with Frank Connolly remaining as its executive director. What is the next move in defence of our national security? Is it time to call in Willie O'Dea yet?

No people will just diss its reports as it will have lost credibility if it has a liar and a subversive directing it...
They will be valueless.It would be like SF investigating IRA smuggling rings.
I await the next episode in this saga-Connolly's proof that he was not in Columbia and that he has nothing to hide because frankly Feeneys investigations and the actions he took are very damning of Connolly.

It is imperative that this is cleared up.

stevenmu

Earthman wrote:

Nope,I'd imagine Feeneys truck would be with Connollys reputation only. If Connolly was gone there wouldnt be an issue for Feeney and the funding could be asked for again.I dont see a reason then for refusal.

Hopefully, as a concept the CPI is great idea. Having an independant body keeping an eye on what the government gets up to could work very well. It's very suspicious that they were investigating actions by McDowell's department when this all kicked off. Combining this with the earlier changes to the Freedom of Information act (not sure if McD was involved with that), and how he's recently been trying to tighten media controls paints a very bad picture.

Earthman wrote:

Yeah he's done it before in relation to the SF leadership and the IRA army council, and on the northern bank robbery but in that case he did it and not a word of complaint was made by most of the Dáil

I might be overly cynical here, but that came at a period in time when SF was rapidly gaining popularity and taking seats from other parties, the double-whammy of the McCartney murder and the NB robbery put a halt to that, so it was in the best interests of most of the Dáil to go along with it.

stevenmu

stevenmu wrote:

Hopefully, as a concept the CPI is great idea. Having an independant body keeping an eye on what the government gets up to could work very well.

I'd agree with you there

It's very suspicious that they were investigating actions by McDowell's department when this all kicked off. Combining this with the earlier changes to the Freedom of Information act (not sure if McD was involved with that), and how he's recently been trying to tighten media controls paints a very bad picture.

I dont think so for a number of reasons. 1. A change of government and a new minister has access to everything that McDowell has done.I doubt they'd be slow to waste an opportunity to expose an impropriety in relation to the Prison 2.McDowell couldnt possiblly expect not to have the accusation thrown at him regarding "oh they were investigating your prison site" 3.As I mentioned earlier, the CPI hires journalists in the main to do investigative work.If they've found any corruption(they've been on this for a number of months) , they're not going to bury the scoop.

I might be overly cynical here, but that came at a period in time when SF was rapidly gaining popularity and taking seats from other parties, the double-whammy of the McCartney murder and the NB robbery put a halt to that, so it was in the best interests of most of the Dáil to go along with it.

I dont think FG are very SF friendly and neither are labour.
They agreed mostly with McDowells conclusions at the time, so its reasonable to think that an FG Minister for justice or a Labour one, with sight of the same Garda inteligence would have made similar pronouncements in the public interest.

This is a fairly transparent democracy we live in now and improving,(when you consider an active investigative media and the quality of questioning by elected representatives in a post tribunal environment) its not run by poll pot

Hobart

Just stated today the infamous application was not made in the name of Frank Connolly. I wonder where they got their suspicions from so?

Nuttzz

If Connolly wasnt in Columbia, proving that he wasnt would put egg on McDowell's face and make his position untenable as minister of justice, I wonder why Connolly doesnt do that??

Sand

Just stated today the infamous application was not made in the name of Frank Connolly. I wonder where they got their suspicions from so?

Em, of course it wasnt made in his name?!?!? That would defeat the whole purpose of getting a passport that you can use to move around without being flagged? The issue was that his mug was on the photo accompanying the application (allegedly, the photo hasnt been released afaik and I imagine Frank would fight tooth and nail to stop it getting out) made in a name other than Frank Connolly, afaik in the name of a dead Belfast man, with a forged signiature of a Belfast priest.

I imagine they got their suspicions from watching what Frank and the lads were up to and maybe seeing them visit the passport office? I sincerly hope the intelligence services on either side of the border keep tabs on the movements of terrorists and bomb makers, as well as their associates.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

I sincerly hope the intelligence services on either side of the border dont keep tabs on the movements of terrorists and bomb makers, as well as their associates.

Strange stance from someone so police state

Hobart

Sand wrote:

Em, of course it wasnt made in his name?!?!? That would defeat the whole purpose of getting a passport that you can use to move around without being flagged?

Some people were unaware of that. You have probably missed the point of me posting it.

The issue was that his mug was on the photo accompanying the application (allegedly, the photo hasnt been released afaik and I imagine Frank would fight tooth and nail to stop it getting out)

Well according to Sam Smyth on Eamonn Dunphy's program this week, the document he got from McD was accompanied by photocopies of the photo's which were presented with this application. Even SS, when pushed by Dunphy, said that he could not swear that the photo's where of Connolly, a man he admitted to knowing for over 20 years?

As for where they got their suspicions, who knows?

A Dub in Glasgo

Justice Minister Michael McDowell said yesterday he was ‘highly amused’ when questioned over his role in the Frank Connolly saga

Journalist Frank Connolly has broken his silence on the Michael McDowell controversy just hours after the Irish justice minister said he now finds being questioned about the saga by the press amusing.

Speaking exclusively to Daily Ireland last night Centre for Public Inquiry (CPI) head Frank Connolly says he's heartened by the number of messages of support received from colleagues and the public since the storm broke over allegations by Michael McDowell that he took part in an IRA mission to Colombia.

Mr Connolly, who has denied ever applying for a false passport, as alleged by Minister McDowell, or travelling to Colombia to meet with Farc rebels, says the campaign against him has become “Kafkaesque".

“I'm like a butterfly in a tsunami at the minute but it's clear that there's an awful lot of support out there. Messages of support, by phone, text and email, have been coming to me personally and to the centre over the past few days. A quick look at the letters page of the Irish Times shows that the public knows this is a witch-hunt by Michael McDowell. This is an issue of human rights and the public sees it that way."

Mr Connolly said he may issue a comprehensive statement in coming days.
The board of the CPI yesterday issued its first statement since the controversy broke in the Dáil. Centre chairman Fergus Flood has already said that he's keen to meet with American philanthropist Chuck Feeney whose Atlantic Philanthropies decided on December 7 to cease further funding for the investigative body. It's believed Mr Feeney, who declines press interviews, is in Ireland this week.

Mr Connolly's remarks came just hours after Mr McDowell told a Dublin radio reporter he was amused that journalists should continue to question him about the Connolly affair. The minister for justice also endorsed an article in yesterday's Irish Times by Kevin Myers which supports his position.
“I read the papers the same as your self, I am not discussing this issue here today. Listen, I am highly amused by people asking me now to deal with issues when they were all screaming at me about talking about this issue. One recommendation to all of you, read Kevin Myers, put it up on your wall, and memorise it."

Mr McDowell continues to stand by his claims despite reports that a private investigation company hired by Chuck Feeney to look into Mr Connolly's background gave the former Sunday Business Post journalist a clean bill of health.

Where are the criminal charges?

Cork

stevenmu wrote:

Hopefully, as a concept the CPI is great idea. Having an independant body keeping an eye on what the government gets up to could work very well.

We need more of these - financed by who ever it does not matter.

Where are the criminal charges?

Where are the libel and slander charges??

mike65

Nuttzz wrote:

If Connolly wasnt in Columbia, proving that he wasnt would put egg on McDowell's face and make his position untenable as minister of justice, I wonder why Connolly doesnt do that??

Because he can't or at least can't without compromising someone else perhaps?.

Mike.

Hobart

mike65 wrote:

Because he can't or at least can't without compromising someone else perhaps?.

Mike.

Also, as an innocent Man, he does not have too. Are we all forgetting this?

Hobart

Hobart wrote:

Also, as an innocent Man, he does not have too. Are we all forgetting this?

He does have to clarify if he's been in Columbia with the Farc by establishing his inability to have been there.
Otherwise it would have to be asked why not...

Hobart

Earthman wrote:

He does have to clarify if he's been in Columbia with the Farc.

Has McDowell put forward the asscertion that Frank Connolly was over with the Farc? I didn't realise that.

Actually what is the exact nature of McDowells allegations? Anybody got a 2 liner that can clarify this?


are they:
1)That Connolly was trying to get a Passport for the purpose of travelling to Columbia?

2)A passport issued in the Name of John Johnson to was applied for by FC?

3)A form was filled in by FC, fradulently, and no passport was issued?

4)FC went to Columbia on a false passport and trained/conversed with the Farc?

5) FC tried to gain access to Columbia on a false passport and was turned back?

What part (if any) are truisms when if comes to McDowell?

A Dub in Glasgo

I don't think very many 'democrats' here care. As long as they stick the boot in, it is acceptable. Guilty until proven otherwise..... reminds me of the plight of Irish people in the '70s and '80s Britain

Hobart

Hobart wrote:

Has McDowell put forward the asscertion that Frank Connolly was over with the Farc? I didn't realise that.

Yes he has , even tonight on the RTÉ news.

Actually what is the exact nature of McDowells allegations? Anybody got a 2 liner that can clarify this?

He suggests Connolly was over in columbia gathering funds for to unfairly be spent covertly to support a party here.He doesnt say which but its fairly obvious who.
He also said tonight on the RTÉ news that this money was Farc drug money exchanged for bomb making know how.
He couldnt have been more explicit if he tried.

Now Connolly simply must show that he wasnt over in Columbia in 2001.
It's an ideal opportunity to knock a political adversary and it would be a prize of all prizes for those constantly being critcised by McDowell.

Otherwise, theres a big problem.

Cork

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I don't think very many 'democrats' here care.

I don't care much for the Columbia 3 or the "Bring them Home" campaign.

Michael McDowell was absolutely right to speek out about this.

He has a right to make his views known. I applaud him making a stand.

stevenmu

@Earthman,

I'm having a hard time coming up with good points to disagree with you, I don't think our views are diametrically opposed, it's just the one point we disagree on. I do think that if the CPI is to perform it's function properly it's people, especially the higher ranking ones, need to have a 'whiter than white' reputation. Otherwise any reports they make can and will be torn apart by whomever stands to lose from them. As such it is important that the allegations regarding FC are brought into the public forum. Our real difference of opinion is that I feel it's wrong for Minister For Justice to be the one to bring this to the public attention. This is partly because he stands to personally gain from bringing the CPI, and in particular FC, into disrepute. To a small extent this relates to the prison sites and other matters under his purview as minister for justice, but mainly it all falls back to the fact that Sinn Féin is the main opposition to his political party. He ties FC to the Columbia 3 which he ties back to SF/IRA, and he really makes sure the electorate is aware of this.

As far as I'm concerned, the integrity of our justice system, specifically in this case the 'innocent-till-proven-guilty' aspect of it is far more crucial to our 'national security' than any threat posed by SF/IRA, or specifically by FC. I do feel M.McD has violated this justice system by taking evidence collected by agents of the state and releasing conclusions drawn from it to the general public as if they were proven fact. True, it is suspicious that FC has not provided proof of his whereabouts during the time involved, but then again I can't prove that I didn't spend the last summer in Iraq training to be a terrorist (altough I assure you all, I didn't), it's very hard to prove a negative, especially when it's a few years in the past.

Even if FC did travel to Columbia, I know Irish people who've been to Comlumbia who are as anti-SF/IRA as the most anti-SF/IRA people on this politics forum (and that's really saying something). I am 100% certain they were not involved in any dubious activities. Let's say for example I ran for public office of some kind against one opponent, and that opponent produced 'evidence' that I had travelled to Iraq and claimed that I was supporting Al-Qaeda. Even if I had travelled to Iraq, would that not be slightly supsicious (as in it's wrong for someone to claim I'm a terrorist just because I went to Iraq)?


@Everyone, I think it should be remembered that even the Columbia 3 were convicted in dubious cicumstances. They were aquitted in a normal public trial, the verdict of which was overthrown by a secret government arranged tribunal. Now, I'm not in a position to say if they were or were not aiding FARC, or raising funds for the IRA, not only have I not seen the evidence, but I'm also not qualified to make that decision. All I'm saying is that two tenets of our system of justice are, or at least should be,

1: 'Proof beyond reasonable doubt'

and

2: 'Innocent untill proven guilty'

and now Frank Connely's 'guilt' is being tied to association with what the Columbia 3 supposedly did. Personally I've no problem with believing the Columbia 3 were up to no good, but it hasn't been proven in a fair and independant court of law, and neither has any wrongdoing by FC. As such it's wrong for the Minister For Justice to declare people guilty of wrongdoing.

samb

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I don't think very many 'democrats' here care. As long as they stick the boot in, it is acceptable. Guilty until proven otherwise..... reminds me of the plight of Irish people in the '70s and '80s Britain

Most English people cared and knew little about Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s. All they experienced was bombs and shootings by Irish people against innocent people. Of course some persecuted the Irish unfairly and branded all Irish the same, but the same irrational minority here exists that brands all English people tyrants. You could have made that point based on any group of people who are persecuted based on the actions of a minority. All muslims terrorists, Priests paedeophiles etc etc etc..........

Frank Connoly is being accused as an Individual.

I'm no fan of Micheal McDowell, but their can be no disputing that he smart, knowledgable about the law, and ambitous. He is not going to jeapordise his career, he is very certain of FC s guilt.

samb

stevenmu wrote:

@Earthman,

but mainly it all falls back to the fact that Sinn Féin is the main opposition to his political party. He ties FC to the Columbia 3 which he ties back to SF/IRA, and he really makes sure the electorate is aware of this.
QUOTE]

I don't think Sinn Fein and the PDs are competing for the same votes..?
Do you mean they are in competion as Fianna Fail coalition partners?

stevenmu

samb wrote:

I don't think Sinn Fein and the PDs are competing for the same votes..?
Do you mean they are in competion as Fianna Fail coalition partners?

Yes, I think they're competing as a party which may hold the 'balance' in who forms the next government as opposed to stealing PD votes. I can see how my previous posts may have been interpreted to mean otherwise though .

I think it's generally accepted by most people that SF could easily hold the balance of power in the next general election (I'm not going to say if I think that's a good or bad thing, that's a whole other thread ). I think it's safe to say that if the trend of their popularity had of continued, before the McCartney and Northern Bank incidents, the balance of power would have definitely shifted in their favour, i.e. either the next government, or the one after that, would have been composed of Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil. That means the PDs would have been pushed out of government and into oppocition, which means M.McD would have ended up as a shadow 'somethin-or-other' as opposed to a minister with a huge amount of power and who will probably dend up being Tánaiste after the next election.



(in the interests of openess and honesty, I'll mention at this point that I don't want to see SF in any kind of power, if for no other reason than their economic policies suck, big time.).

Cork

samb wrote:

I'm no fan of Micheal McDowell, but their can be no disputing that he smart, knowledgable about the law, and ambitous. He is not going to jeapordise his career, he is very certain of FC s guilt.

Still no proof that FC was not in Columbia.

In an era of ATMs, Credit cards statements etc - I would havre tought accounting for your where abouts would be pretty easy.

oscarBravo

stevenmu wrote:

...I can't prove that I didn't spend the last summer in Iraq training to be a terrorist...

I can. [1]

stevenmu wrote:

Even if FC did travel to Columbia, I know Irish people who've been to Comlumbia who are as anti-SF/IRA as the most anti-SF/IRA people on this politics forum (and that's really saying something). I am 100% certain they were not involved in any dubious activities. Let's say for example I ran for public office of some kind against one opponent, and that opponent produced 'evidence' that I had travelled to Iraq and claimed that I was supporting Al-Qaeda. Even if I had travelled to Iraq, would that not be slightly supsicious (as in it's wrong for someone to claim I'm a terrorist just because I went to Iraq)?

Right, but expand the context: if your brother had been convicted of training terrorists in Iraq while there on a false passport, and there was evidence that you'd applied for a false passport, and you refused to produce any evidence that you hadn't been in Iraq at the time - would it surprise you if people thought you had questions to answer?

In your hypothetical situation, you're running for public office. Given my expanded context, I wouldn't vote for you. The fact that you haven't been convicted of (or even charged with) anything doesn't mean I have to believe you're trustworthy, especially if it's apparently within your remit to demonstrate that you have nothing to hide, but you choose not to.

FC isn't running for public office (that I'm aware of). He is, however, putting himself in a position where a lot hinges on his perceived trustworthiness.

[1] Prove that I wasn't in Iraq, not you

gurramok

Earthman wrote:

Now Connolly simply must show that he wasnt over in Columbia in 2001.
It's an ideal opportunity to knock a political adversary and it would be a prize of all prizes for those constantly being critcised by McDowell.

Otherwise, theres a big problem.

Connolly did say that he was never in Colombia(no dates mentioned), so he ain't exactly being 100% silent

oscarBravo wrote:

Right, but expand the context: if your brother had been convicted of training terrorists in Iraq while there on a false passport, and there was evidence that you'd applied for a false passport, and you refused to produce any evidence that you hadn't been in Iraq at the time - would it surprise you if people thought you had questions to answer?

Its quite obvious that you do not trust the DPP when they did not charge him with any offence.
Maybe DPP in your view is corrupt?

gurramok

gurramok wrote:

Connolly did say that he was never in Colombia(no dates mentioned), so he ain't exactly being 100% silent

Yeah and when Chuck Feeneys investigators reported , Chuck dropped the money.
Connolly has to counter this.

Its quite obvious that you do not trust the DPP when they did not charge him with any offence.
Maybe DPP in your view is corrupt?

Dont know where thats coming from.
I'm not giving an opinion on what the DPP did or did not do.I'm asking Connolly to show us the beef as to his whereabouts ie prove what he says is the case.
Chuck Feeney doesnt believe him after extensive private investigations.

Otherwise, theres nothing but doubt.

Hobart

Interesting (slightly related) article here about McDowell and his attitude towards the press and Guards. Actually when challenged to give examples of where journalists where bribing Guards he replied "I am not supposed to just throw out into the public domain facts which haven't been proven in court about people." . Funny that, don't you think?

In a UCD English class they teach you to do an exercise called "close reading of Text"
Applying the technique to

"I am not supposed to just throw out into the public domain facts which haven't been proven in court about people." Then the word "just" in the light of all he has said in the past couple of weeks means
Unless its in the national interest.
So I dont think its funny.

I would if he was throwing out Garda files on every Tom Dick and Harry political opponent and theres no evidence of that.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

In a UCD English class they teach you to do an exercise called "close reading of Text"
Applying the technique to

"I am not supposed to just throw out into the public domain facts which haven't been proven in court about people." Then the word "just" in the light of all he has said in the past couple of weeks means
Unless its in the national interest.
So I dont think its funny.

What else is acceptable to McD for his interpretation of the national interest? Torture (or is it Rendition)? Murder? Blackening political opponents/others?

How about facilitating any of the above?

I very much doubt McD meant

'I am not supposed to throw out into the public domain facts which haven't been proven in court about people unless it is in the national interest'

which is what is alluded to above

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I very much doubt McD meant

'I am not supposed to throw out into the public domain facts which haven't been proven in court about people unless it is in the national interest'

which is what is alluded to above

He's clearly stated that he and the government think what was done was in the national interest.

It seems perfectly logical to draw that conclusion given that its been said ad nauseum by the people with the authority to decide it.

That doesnt immediately absolve him or the government from the seriousness of releasing the information but it's being mitigated very strongly by Connollys inability to challenge the accussation of being in Columbia or the inferrals of dodgyness by Chuck feeney's decision(post investigating the matter)

All we have so far from Mr Connolly is that he "may" issue a statement.
It's imperative that he resolves this