McDowell Controversy

Cork · 17-12-2005 6:09pm

Earthman wrote:

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

Frank Connolly needs to issue a statement. I can't understand the delay myself.

One thing for sure is that the Columbia 3 were not out there bird watching. or doing anything in the national interest.

I think Michael McDowell has more information on the Columbian situation than what is in the public domain.

I think he should let us know what these 3 people were doing in Columbia. SF/IRA may not like it but I feel that the public have a right to know.

Hobart · 17-12-2005 6:42pm

Earthman wrote:

"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 am presuming that this is your interpretation of the context in which the word "just" is used?

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

Speaking of close reading of text, I have an issue with your statement, if it is as you say, what he has clearly stated. I do not want any Minister, particularly one in charge of justice, thinking that this is the right thing to do. I want him to be damn sure of it.

oscarBravo · 17-12-2005 7:04pm

gurramok wrote:

Its quite obvious that you do not trust the DPP when they did not charge him with any offence.

I have no beef with the DPP. I can only assume that no charges were brought because such evidence as exists is insufficient to secure a conviction. That doesn't mean that no evidence exists; nor does it mean that such evidence is not compelling.

It's easy to forget that "innocent until proven guilty" is a criminal justice concept. I don't feel compelled to apply the same standard to my personal decisions about who to find trustworthy.

gurramok wrote:

Maybe DPP in your view is corrupt?

I have no reason to believe that this is the case. In fact, I not so long ago directly challenged someone on this forum who indirectly accused the DPP of political bias (but chose not to back that accusation up).

the1andonly1 · 17-12-2005 7:38pm

Again, McDowells justification for the release of this information was that the CPI was a threat to the security of the state. Which is bizarre, seeing as the 2 reports that they have commisioned have, whilst being critical of government actions, steered completly clear of any issue which may compromise the security of the country. Also, the structure of the CPI, from what I gather (there was an article in the Village magazine about this), is that they commision reports be drawn up on certain issues, so even the people directly involved with drawing up their reports are seperate from the organisation itself. The 2 reports to date have been carried out by world reknowned people, experts in their field, foreigners I think (the Corrib gas investigation was carried out by an american I believe) so far. Any suggestion that these people are out to subvert the state is ridiculous.

17-12-2005 7:45pm

Hobart wrote:

I am presuming that this is your interpretation of the context in which the word "just" is used?

Well I'm using logic too.
His statement infers that he disagree's with will nilly spontaneous un considered releasing of information.
Thats what the word "just" means.
It is clear however that this has been under consideration by the cabinet since at least last August and the PMQ was answered in December.
Thats a completely different scenario/context to the one where he says "just" doing something.

Speaking of close reading of text, I have an issue with your statement, if it is as you say, what he has clearly stated. I do not want any Minister, particularly one in charge of justice, thinking that this is the right thing to do. I want him to be damn sure of it.

Well I dunno about you but the impression that I have is that he's damn sure or otherwise he wouldnt have staked his job and a governments reputation on it.

But yeah now that you are closely reading my posts,mere mortal that I am,my post count should rise rapidly with all the clarifications you will be requesting

Hobart · 17-12-2005 7:54pm

Earthman wrote:

Well I'm using logic too.
His statement infers that he disagree's with will nilly spontaneous un considered releasing of information.
Thats what the word "just" means.
It is clear however that this has been under consideration by the cabinet since at least last August and the PMQ was answered in December.
Thats a completely different scenario/context to the one where he says "just" doing something.

Well then it's your considered interpratation then.

Well I dunno about you but the impression that I have is that he's damn sure or otherwise he wouldnt have staked his job and a governments reputation on it.

But yeah now that you are closely reading my posts,mere mortal that I am,my post count should rise rapidly with all the clarifications you will be requesting

There are numerous examples of governments being stuck on 1 thing or another, that have ended in disaster. I will be sure when, and if, all the facts have been established. Not before.

17-12-2005 7:58pm

the1andonly1 wrote:

Again, McDowells justification for the release of this information was that the CPI was a threat to the security of the state. Which is bizarre, seeing as the 2 reports that they have commisioned have, whilst being critical of government actions, steered completly clear of any issue which may compromise the security of the country.

I thought I'd explained the rationale for that earlier.
I'll go again.
The CPI is in its infancy."IF" (as it appears McDowells theory is) Connolly's objective would be to put out reports favourable to a SF agenda,then they aint going to be doing that with their first couple of reports-Connolly would throw one or two in the mix later on.
I doubt that he would at all to be honest or at least he wont now.

That said, having Connolly heading up the CPI is detrimental to its reputation if he has lied about not being in Columbia and more pertinately having someone who is avoiding clearing the matter up when a serious investigative effort resulted in american philantropies being worried enough about him to divorce themselves from him... is damaging to the CPI.
Not clearing that up is fishy in the extreme and in that context, if they want to be taken seriously in future, they either get a new squeeky clean director OR Connolly shows us the beef as to the impossibility of him having been in Columbia.

Peanut · 17-12-2005 9:07pm

the1andonly1 wrote:

...was that the CPI was a threat to the security of the state. Which is bizarre, seeing as the 2 reports that they have commisioned have, whilst being critical of government actions, steered completly clear of any issue which may compromise the security of the country.
...

What they do or don't report on is largely irrelavant to security - the fact that the government appears to be very sure (and are very much putting their reputation at stake) that they have subversive links is reason enough.

Even if the CPI never brought out any reports consistent with a SF agenda, a situation where subversives might have access to the information gathering resources (and good name) of an independent inquiry body is unacceptable in itself.

A Dub in Glasgo · 17-12-2005 9:32pm

To coin a phrase 'tinfoil hat stuff'

17-12-2005 9:50pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

To coin a phrase 'tinfoil hat stuff'

Well that description might hold if Connolly gets his finger out and shows that he wasnt in Columbia.
Given that Chuck Feeney dumped the CPI after using the same kind of resources if not better than the CPI to investigate Connolly-its imperative that Connolly makes this statement and shows how wrong McDowell is.
Otherwise, its fishy.

A Dub in Glasgo · 17-12-2005 9:56pm

Where is the evidence of this stuff?

Bueller, Bueller... anyone?

A lot of seemingly democratic people are relying on the accused to prove he is innocent of the accusations rather than the accuser proving his accusations against the accused. If Connolly was such a threat to national security, why has he not been arrested, why has he not been charged with any offence?

Bueller, Bueller... anyone?

17-12-2005 10:09pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Where is the evidence of this stuff?

Bueller, Bueller... anyone?

A lot of seemingly democratic people are relying on the accused to prove he is innocent of the accusations rather than the accuser proving his accusations against the accused. If Connolly was such a threat to national security, why has he not been arrested, why has he not been charged with any offence?

Bueller, Bueller... anyone?

How can we be asking anyone to prove their innocence when we are not accusing them of a crime?
We are simply passing judgement on the qualifications for a directorship of a body styling itself as the CPI.
Transparency would be a given.
A simple question is being asked,were you ever in Columbia and proof simply found isnt forth coming yet.
The basis for the need to know this would be the confidence needed in a body investigating other bodies for corruption should be above reproach itself.
Being intimate with the Farc aint what I would call above reproach.
I in common with most people would have no difficulty proving I havent been in Columbia-so Frank needs to do the same to combat the fishyness.
Particularally when the CPI's benevolent sponsor thought there was enough in his investigation to end his association with them on account of Connolly.

Theres no getting away from that unless Connolly clears it up.
It so simple to do that.The lack of it being done, is even more puzzling for the damage it would do to McDowell in the process would be a prize.

A Dub in Glasgo · 17-12-2005 10:44pm

Unless I am mistaken, attempting to obtain an Irish passport by deception is a crime. Also training FARC forces is a crime. The amount of heat put on Feeney by McD and the government is a very obvious reason for his decision to pull funding. Smear someone by claiming they commited crimes and are training the FARC is enough to put pressure on a lot of people.

Here is AP/RN views on the affair

Huge effort to sabotage CPI and smear Connolly

BY MÁIRTÍN Mac EOIN

McDowell's admission that he leaked the Garda documents to the Irish Independent to smear Frank Connolly show McDowell breaching all rules of due process. His comments in the Dáil accusing Connolly of obtaining a false passport to travel to Colombia mark an abandonment of the rule of law which is supposed to be the governing principle of the establishment parties.

But why has Connolly brought this ire down upon him? Frank Connolly is a highly-respected investigative journalist whose work was very instrumental in bringing about the tribunals of inquiry that exposed the levels of political corruption in this country in planning and other matters. Indeed, it is doubtful whether the infamous Ray Burke, found guilty of corruption, would ever have been convicted without Connolly's work.

But Connolly came to the conclusion that the tribunals were confined by their terms of reference to the very minimum of what needed to be investigated. In Ray Burke's case, for example, there were questions concerning his involvement in giving the Shell consortium ownership of the Corrib gas field, as he had been convicted of taking money corruptly in other areas where he had decision-making power. But the Government refused to open up the tribunals to look at these questions.

In moving out from planning to other decisions Connolly was threatening to expose the deep links between the top echelons of Irish political life and the seamier side of international business.

That perhaps didn't matter that much, until Connolly persuaded the Irish-American Chuck Feeney to fund his Centre and managed to bring on board the judge who had investigated the planning scandals, Mr Feargus Flood.

The Irish Independent and Sunday Independent went berserk, with 'Sir' Anthony O'Reilly's entire stable leaving no stone unturned in an effort to sabotage the Centre. They were left apoplectic when Connolly's centre pre-empted the government report into the Corrib gas project and showed that the people of Ros Dumhach are indeed in grave danger from the project as the five jailed campaigners argued. Revenge was not long in coming, when Sam Smyth gallantly entered the fray on behalf of the rich and powerful, or more importantly on behalf of his friend and paymaster, Tony O'Reilly, who even pays the airfares (first class) for his tame hack's holidays in South Africa. I wonder does Sam pay tax on that!

If there is evidence of any wrong doing on the part of Frank Connolly he should be charged and the evidence tested in the courts. The DPP refused to entertain that idea because there was no evidence, so Michael McDowell has changed the rules to suit himself.

In other countries in Western Europe McDowell would have been forced to resign by now, and it's a measure of our 'democracy' that he's still in office.

17-12-2005 11:03pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Unless I am mistaken, attempting to obtain an Irish passport by deception is a crime.

I'm not acusing him of that-McDowell is.

Also training FARC forces is a crime.

Not by Irish law, unless I suppose you are training them here.

The amount of heat put on Feeney by McD and the government is a very obvious reason for his decision to pull funding. Smear someone by claiming they commited crimes and are training the FARC is enough to put pressure on a lot of people.

Smear? Connolly can turn that around very quickly.

Here is AP/RN views on the affair

That reads like a Daily Ireland article.Was one syndicated by AP or Reuters? Do you have a link to it?

Peanut · 17-12-2005 11:09pm

Earthman wrote:

That reads like a Daily Ireland article.Was one syndicated by AP or Reuters? Do you have a link to it?

sinnfeinnews.com tbh
google cache

17-12-2005 11:17pm

Enough said

No need for the link.

To describe the above as the Reuters/AP view on things is well stretcing credulity back to when we were taking to aliens earlier tbh.
They syndicate a lot of things

A Dub in Glasgo · 17-12-2005 11:22pm

Earthman wrote:

Enough said

No need for the link.

To describe the above as the Reuters/AP view on things is well stretcing credulity back to when we were taking to aliens earlier tbh.
They syndicate a lot of things

Eh? I stated where it came from. AP/RN is An Phoblacht/Republican News. It was always known as AP/RN!

http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/12426

A Dub in Glasgo · 17-12-2005 11:28pm

Earthman wrote:

I'm not acusing him of that-McDowell is.

The government are accusing FC of commiting a crime, why has he not been arrested? Why has he not been charged?

Not by Irish law, unless I suppose you are training them here.

The government is accusing FC of a crime, have they sent their evidence to Colombia? Have they prepared for an extradition?

Smear? Connolly can turn that around very quickly.

It is wholly irrelevant if a person can refute a smear. The fact of the matter is the Government are smearing FC. Where are the charges? Threat to national security? that is quite serious and I would fully expect a person accused of such to be arrested and charged. Would you?

18-12-2005 1:01am

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The government are accusing FC of commiting a crime, why has he not been arrested? Why has he not been charged?

So what? pages ago,I said it was obvious that the DPP mustn't have had enough evidence to secure a conviction on the passport thing.
What you are doing is a classic case of hey look over there... when what is really pertinent here is the simple question as to why Connolly hasnt refuted claims that he was in Columbia properly by showing that he couldnt be there.

The government is accusing FC of a crime, have they sent their evidence to Colombia? Have they prepared for an extradition?

More look over there stuff in the absence of the pertinent and easy establishment that Connolly couldnt have been in Columbia.

It is wholly irrelevant if a person can refute a smear. it would be a smear The fact of the matter is the Government are smearing FC. Where are the charges?

It's a smear on a republican to be associated with the IRA? As for it being irrelevant as to whether or Not Connolly was in Columbia,I must contest that.If he was,then I simply will have no sympathy for his current predicament.

Threat to national security? that is quite serious and I would fully expect a person accused of such to be arrested and charged. Would you?

Only if he had done something that had broken a law. His character is whats being put in question and whether he is a fit character to be running an outfit like the CPI.The issue of him being in Columbia has been raised and he has so far failed to do a simple exercise of proving that such a trip was impossible.

This supposed threat to National security arises out of McDowells assertion that Connolly has links to Subversives.The grounding for that is the accusation that he has been in Columbia which is dead easy to refute by showing that he couldn't be there and utterly demolishing McDowells premise along with it.

A golden opportunity there for the taking and its not being used which is fishy.
So lets have the beef and Connolly showing that he couldn't have been in Columbia instead of the look over there diversions.

Libero · 18-12-2005 5:07am

You have to love An Phoblacht.

Their opening paragraph lays into McDowell for "breaching all rules of due process".

The piece then praises Connolly for being prepared to go further than the Tribunals, i.e. beyond the norms of due process.

And like many defenders of Connolly, they have a strange idea that the rules governing the conduct of criminal trials (per Article 38 of the Constitution) should be applied in general situations:
"If there is evidence of any wrong doing on the part of Frank Connolly he should be charged and the evidence tested in the courts."
If Irish society took that advice, there would be no Centre for Public Enquiry. The moment it started asking questions about any wrongdoing, we would be bound to ask them to shut up and let their evidence be tested in court.

The selective arguments and general shallowness is breathtaking.

Now there is an argument that even if Connolly has done all the things that McDowell alledges, McDowell was still wrong to act as he did - leaking confidential documents to one media source.

Thing is, it's strange to hear this argument coming from journalists. They are normally all in favour of printing confidential state documents once it throws light on a matter of public interest (and Connolly's activities certainly are such a matter).

And it is difficult to imagine most critics of McDowell demanding that he keep hold of confidential files if they could legally be disclosed to throw light on something like planning corruption or the Arms Trial or whatever. Too many people are elevating their distaste for McDowell to a level where they have to twist what are really their principled beliefs in order to join in the chorus of criticism.

Doctor Benway · 18-12-2005 9:11am

Libero wrote:

You have to love An Phoblacht.

Their opening paragraph lays into McDowell for "breaching all rules of due process".

The piece then praises Connolly for being prepared to go further than the Tribunals, i.e. beyond the norms of due process.

There is a slight difference insofar as the article alledges that Connolly (presented as some sort of Fletch-like maverick) goes as far as he does when the government refuses to investigate matters of public concern properly. However, it's a bit of a sticky wicket for AP, which is conflating the tribunal process with the criminal/judicial process. While the government should, in theory, be separated from the judicial process (if only by the Chinese walls which exist between the Minister for Justice and the Gardai/judiciary), by AP's logic the government should establish a tribunal of inquiry into the CPI and links with paramilitary organisations. It's within the power of the Dail to do so, even if enough evidence is not available to bring a criminal prosecution (which isn't the same thing as saying that NO evidence exists, AP/RN!).

I doubt if they'd be too pleased with that, though.

A Dub in Glasgo · 18-12-2005 10:28am

Vincent Browne hits the nail firmly on the head in todays SBP

18-12-2005 11:03am

Interesting read allright.
I hope Ray Burke and Frank Connolly dont have anything in common ie an ability to lie.
Thing is lies have the awkward quality of being shown for what they are when the light is shone on them.
So it's time for the easy simple to find evidence that Connolly wasnt ever in Columbia.

18-12-2005 1:22pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Eh? I stated where it came from. AP/RN is An Phoblacht/Republican News. It was always known as AP/RN!

http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/12426

Rofl and heres me searching Reuters News and Associated Press for the article.

I wouldnt expect anything less from An Phoblacht.

the1andonly1 · 18-12-2005 4:48pm

I must say, Vincent Browne, in the article posted above, hits the nail on the head regarding this issue. Of course the legal requirements which would be oberved in a trial do not have to be met in this situation. But it is interesting to note Vincent Brownes comments on the bona fides of information in a garda file. There is no doubt that McDowells allegations were, in some way, based upon information which had been obtained from the Columbain intelligence gathering organisations. And I believe question marks hang over this intelligence, if we look back to the trial of the columbian 3, it was discredited in the original trial. Of course the 3 men involved in that case were convicted, but only by an appeal court which heard no evidence. I think that this must raise some questions as to the amount of credence that anyone can place on the information coming from these sources (Dont get me wrong, I'm not at all a supporter of Sinn Fein). Again this was all motivated by the desire to close the CPI, using the cover of a threat to national security which is at best a dubious claim.

Cork · 18-12-2005 5:23pm

the1andonly1 wrote:

There is no doubt that McDowells allegations were, in some way, based upon information which had been obtained from the Columbain intelligence gathering organisations. And I believe question marks hang over this intelligence, if we look back to the trial of the columbian 3, it was discredited in the original trial. Of course the 3 men involved in that case were convicted, but only by an appeal court which heard no evidence.

The Colubians and Michael McDowell are obviously to blame. The Columbian 3 were just visiting and it is Columbian intelligence gathering organisations who got it wrong.

The Irish people are not as gullable to brlieve this nonsense.

the1andonly1 · 18-12-2005 6:08pm

The Colubians and Michael McDowell are obviously to blame. The Columbian 3 were just visiting and it is Columbian intelligence gathering organisations who got it wrong.

The Irish people are not as gullable to brlieve this nonsense.

I never said that the Columbia 3 were innocent, and were in columbia on a visit, just that some of the evidence provided in court, in their trial, in front of a judge, was discredited by that judge. This was evidence provided by the columbian intelligence agencies. This in my opinion means there are question marks surrounding the intellugence they have supplied in this occasion, which is what McDowell is basing some of his arguments upon. Not to mention that garda intelligence, and information in garda files has also been discredited on numerous occassions. Which means that information which is supplied to the minister from such files must be taken with a degree of skepticism, and not 100% belief in there trustworthiness

18-12-2005 7:22pm

the1andonly1 wrote:

There is no doubt that McDowells allegations were, in some way, based upon information which had been obtained from the Columbain intelligence gathering organisations.

Maybe not.He went public around the same time as Chuck Feeney after his investigations decided to pull the plug on the CPI.
Maybe he was largely relying on that too.
Chucks investigators would be independent of the Columbian authorities.
Whatever they turned up, it was enough to make up Feeney's mind.

In other news, SS on his radio programme this morning said he couldnt stand up in court and swear that the photo he saw was that of Connolly.
But that was because it was a little passport photo blown up to A4 in a photocopy.
He said it certainly looks like him.

and information in garda files has also been discredited on numerous occassions. Which means that information which is supplied to the minister from such files must be taken with a degree of skepticism, and not 100% belief in there trustworthiness

We may aswell empty the jails so.That latter bit is a sweeping statement .

the1andonly1 · 18-12-2005 7:30pm

Earthman wrote:

We may aswell empty the jails so.That latter bit is a sweeping statement .

Not neccasarily, the information in garda files is shown in court, and is then found to be true or false. Then, someone is either convicted or found innocent. Your not saying that all information held in a garda file is true are you? Because, as outlined by vincent browne in his piece, there are reasons to judge the information with skepticism. Its the reason we have a court system which is independant of the Gardaí, to judge the merits or otherwise of the information they have collected. And in this case, we do not know the bona fides of the information which has been published, nor do we know any of the other details of the file, which may contradict, or corroborate the details already provided

18-12-2005 8:52pm

the1andonly1 wrote:

Not neccasarily, the information in garda files is shown in court, and is then found to be true or false. Then, someone is either convicted or found innocent. Your not saying that all information held in a garda file is true are you?

The corollary of what you're saying there is that some Garda information is made up and thats not the case.It could be in some very rare cases ie bad apples.

Because, as outlined by vincent browne in his piece, there are reasons to judge the information with skepticism. Its the reason we have a court system which is independant of the Gardaí, to judge the merits or otherwise of the information they have collected.

I think you are confusing the veracity of the information with whether its enough to prove a case.

And in this case, we do not know the bona fides of the information which has been published, nor do we know any of the other details of the file, which may contradict, or corroborate the details already provided

Thats right we do not know.
One thing is important though, Connolly could clear it up very quickly.The longer he leaves it, or if he doesnt address his wherabouts at all the fishier it gets.

McDowell Controversy

Comments