Is McDowell using (some of) Goebbels’ tactics?

monument

Deleted User wrote:

Don't assume I haven't read it.

On the logic of this thread (can I assume both of ye haven't read or grasped the highly provocative thread title) I could post a thread with the title 'Were Hitler and Enda Kenny Alike' and then in the fine print explain that I didn't really mean the whole extermination of the Jewish race bit, just that they'd have both enjoyed a 'joke' at the expense of black people. I'm not going to develop that point, it is not worthy of a debate, and neither is the central point of the OP's post...

Is my "breathtaking failure to grasp the horros of the Third Reich and the absolute depravity of the Holocaust" just due to the thread's name or what?

1. Goebbels is knowen as the Propaganda Minister
2. "highly provocative" and my use of "(some of)" in the title are not really going to mix

Is this just the best way you could think of to cover up our Minister's propaganda?

PhoenixRising

flogen wrote:

But what can he do to defend himself? As far as I know he's denied the claims, but given that no evidence is forthcoming he can't defend himself against it. It would just be a case of one persons word against another and is no way to deal with alleged crimes. This is McDowell's failing, avoiding legal process and trying to force a trial by media.
If Connolly came out with a long statement it would be playing into his hands, but the fact is he can remain silent and let it all die down, what court is going to hear a case against him now that the Minister has biased any possible legal action?

Well he could offer an explanation as to what he was doing in Colombia in April 2001 allegedly traveling on a false passport in the company of known IRA members. Did he make the trip or not? Has he an alibi? If he does I'll gladly accept it and let the matter lie, as would everyone else I assume.

A Dub in Glasgo

PhoenixRising wrote:

Well he could offer an explanation as to what he was doing in Colombia in April 2001 allegedly traveling on a false passport in the company of known IRA members. Did he make the trip or not?

I was under the impression he already answered that one or do you not believe him? Leads us nices onto

Has he an alibi? If he does I'll gladly accept it and let the matter lie, as would everyone else I assume.

Guilty until proven innocent!!!! Why do you not call for him to be arrested and charged?

flogen

the problem is that the claims made against him go much further than saying he travelled, or attempted to travel on a false passport.
I too would like to hear his side as far as that goes, and his silence would indicate that he doesn't have an answer, but thankfully there is no legal basis to conclusions and there is certainly no reason for McDowell going as far as he has with nothing to back it up

monument

monument wrote:

Is this just the best way you could think of to cover up our Minister's propaganda?

Are you suggesting I am some apologist for McDowell or applaud his action?

Then perhaps try quotes like...

Deleted User wrote:

It would have been very easy to compare McDowell's action with something extremely objectionable other then the tactics used by Goebbel's...

Wasn't there a point made somewhere about reading posts and not putting words in anothers mouth? And in fact didn't you make that point? Just because I abhor your comparison, don't assume I am defending McDowell...

PhoenixRising

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Why do you not call for him to be arrested and charged?

Well there's no point now as McDowell, by his actions, has made a trial an impossibility.

As to your other point, I have to say that a difference exists in my mind purely because of where these accusations are coming from - the State's Minister for Justice who has access to daily security briefings from the Gardaí. Leaving aside personalities, I have respect for the office of the Minister for Justice and would like to think that any statements made by the minister are truthful and based on Garda intelligence.

Doctor Benway

PhoenixRising wrote:

Well there's no point now as McDowell, by his actions, has made a trial an impossibility.

As to your other point, I have to say that a difference exists in my mind purely because of where these accusations are coming from - the State's Minister for Justice who has access to daily security briefings from the Gardaí. Leaving aside personalities, I have respect for the office of the Minister for Justice and would like to think that any statements made by the minister are truthful and based on Garda intelligence.

"Truthful" and "based on Garda intelligence" aren't necessarily one and the same.

PhoenixRising

Doctor Benway wrote:

"Truthful" and "based on Garda intelligence" aren't necessarily one and the same.

Unfortunately the IRA aren't that open about their activities so the minister has to rely on Garda intelligence for State security. My sentiment remains the same - that I would like to think that the Minister for Justice was sure of his facts before he made the statement.

Doctor Benway

PhoenixRising wrote:

Unfortunately the IRA aren't that open about their activities so the minister has to rely on Garda intelligence for State security. My sentiement remains the same - that I would like to think that the Minister for Justice was sure of his facts before he made the statement.

Even if the accusations were true, it still doesn't explain why he made the statement. Certainly McDowell has claimed that he was acting in the interest of preserving the security of the State. What I can't understand (and what I haven't seen any explanation of ) is how making this statement in any way strengthens 'our' security, particularly considering that it's effectively ensured that Connolly can never stand trial on any offence related to these accusations.

mike65

Enough Connolly, I thought McDowell was the subject of this thread.

Mike.

PhoenixRising

Well for one, I would imagine that this information being made public, will severely limit what Connolly and his associates allegedly get up to.

Doctor Benway

PhoenixRising wrote:

Well for one, I would imagine that this information being made public, will severely limit what Connolly and his associates allegedly get up to.

Without getting into the issue of Connolly's alleged activities (as the thread is about McDowell, as we've been reminded), I don't really see how this could be the case.

If McDowell is acting on Garda intelligence, then (by definition) the Gardaí already know everything that McDowell is putting into the public domain. Surely it's within the power of the Gardaí, rather than the man or woman in the street, to limit what people are able to get up to. While public awareness of potential subversion may possibly add to the chances of its failure, this would be only pretty minimal and has to be balanced against the consequences of a Minister publicly circumventing the judicial process (not to mention the likelihood that the credibility of the Office of the Minister could be damaged by his making these kinds of unsubstantiated and unproveable claims, so that people would be less likely to believe any future accusations).

Diorraing

If there is any justice in the world (no pun intended), Michael McDowell should resign from his office. Even if Connolly was guilty, that is for a court of law to decide. It is clear that McDowell's aim was to cut funding to the CPI and using such tactics to do so is unacceptable in our society. If Fianna Fáil have any backbone left they should stand up to the PDs and boot him out!

mike65

Eh? McDowell is doing FFs dirty work for them! Some make noises on the back benches but trust me the government part of FF is very happy to have the Pds onboard.

Mike.

flogen

flogen wrote:

But what can he do to defend himself? As far as I know he's denied the claims, but given that no evidence is forthcoming he can't defend himself against it.

Pretty easy to show you were not in Columbia n'est pas?

It would just be a case of one persons word against another and is no way to deal with alleged crimes.

It's not against any Irish law to have been in Columbia especially when a false passport cannot be tied to Connolly.

This is McDowell's failing, avoiding legal process and trying to force a trial by media.

How is it trial by media, I understand most of the media are critical of McDowell.If anything it's a trial of McDowell by media and its inflicted on McDowell by himself.

If Connolly came out with a long statement it would be playing into his hands, but the fact is he can remain silent and let it all die down, what court is going to hear a case against him now that the Minister has biased any possible legal action?

All Connolly has to do is show that he couldnt have been in Columbia and blow McDowell out of the water in the process.
In the meantime he has tarnished the CPI's name to all but Republicans it would seem.

After all how could you accept the word of a centre that is supposed to investigate non transparency whne its director is being anything but transparent.

Diorraing

Earthman wrote:

Pretty easy to show you were not in Columbia n'est pas? It's not against any Irish law to have been in Columbia especially when a false passport cannot be tied to Connolly.

Good, then you'll accept that he has nothing to answer. No criminal charges brought against him, no need to answer any.

Diorraing

Diorraing wrote:

Good, then you'll accept that he has nothing to answer. No criminal charges brought against him, no need to answer any.

I wont accept that because he is the head of an investigative body and he is not being transparent.
He's being evasive.
He needs to clear this up and do what he expects of others and be transparent.

Diorraing

Earthman wrote:

I wont accept that because he is the head of an investigative body and he is not being transparent.
He's being evasive.
He needs to clear this up and do what he expects of others and be transparent.

Not being transparent? Transparent about what? There is no evidence to suggest anything. If anyone is being evasive it is Michael McDowell. He is the head of a government department and he is not being transparent. What evidence is there against Connolly? Why is he not being prosecuted? Frank Connolly may be as guilty as sin, but that is for the court to decide not for any of us

Diorraing

Diorraing wrote:

Not being transparent? Transparent about what? There is no evidence to suggest anything.

Then Connolly should have no difficulty dismissing the claims with more than "I wasnt there" , that wouldnt be good enough for someone that would expect more from the people he's investigating.

If anyone is being evasive it is Michael McDowell. He is the head of a government department and he is not being transparent.

How so? He's put everything out in the open-where he got the information and who he gave it to and this has given him a lot of grief.He neednt have done any of that especially when Connolly has the power to do McDowell a lot of damage.

What evidence is there against Connolly? Why is he not being prosecuted? Frank Connolly may be as guilty as sin, but that is for the court to decide not for any of us

Did you miss the bit where I said it wasnt against the law to go to columbia?
Being in columbia with the Farc and going to ground about it instead of clearly showing he couldnt have been there is not good for the director of CPI or for its reputation.

That should be put to bed easily but it isnt which begs the question of why??
Couple that with the fact that Chuck feeney saw fit to ask him to step down after he did his own bit of independent investigation.
Connolly needs to be transparent about his whereabouts instead of going to ground like he has.

Otherwise he's being very fishy and certainly not living up to the standards of transparency that he expects of others.

A Dub in Glasgo

I thought going to Colombia and training the FARC (as stated by McD) was a crime?

I thought applying for a passport that is not your own ie a fake (as stated by McD) was a crime?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I thought going to Colombia and training the FARC (as stated by McD) was a crime?

In columbia, if there was evidence yes.
It's been put to Connolly that he tagged along so it should be easy to refute that and Damage McDowell.

I thought applying for a passport that is not your own ie a fake (as stated by McD) was a crime?

Dealt with in the earlier thread.
Not enough evidence to sustain a conviction.

All of which is a side issue to Connollys lack of transparency as to his whereabouts, his going to ground and the damage he's doing to his CPI by not being transparent.

McDowell as minister for justice has put his own head on the chopping block and theres no sign of Connolly with the hatchet.
Fishy.

monument

Deleted User wrote:

don't assume I am defending McDowell...

I'll make it easy...

Are, would, or have you defended McDowell in this matter?

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

In columbia, if there was evidence yes.
It's been put to Connolly that he tagged along so it should be easy to refute that and Damage McDowell.
Dealt with in the earlier thread.
Not enough evidence to sustain a conviction.

It is safe to infer that the absence of an arrest and extradition proceeding / charges means that there is no evidence that Connolly went to Colombia. Connolly has already stated that he was not in Colombia and he not try and get a fake passport which corroborates the lack of action against Connolly yet McD stated these things as fact. Has McD backed up his statement with the mysterious 'evidence'? No he has not therefore McD is not being transparant at all.

All of which is a side issue to Connollys lack of transparency as to his whereabouts, his going to ground and the damage he's doing to his CPI by not being transparent.

So he is guilty of the things McD states until he can prove he was not in Colombia and he did not try and get a fake passport?

McDowell as minister for justice has put his own head on the chopping block and theres no sign of Connolly with the hatchet.
Fishy.

I would love to see the hatchet come down but Connolly not proving the statements are false does not mean he is guilty.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It is safe to infer that the absence of an arrest and extradition proceeding / charges means that there is no evidence that Connolly went to Colombia. Connolly has already stated that he was not in Colombia and he not try and get a fake passport which corroborates the lack of action against Connolly yet McD stated these things as fact. Has McD backed up his statement with the mysterious 'evidence'? No he has not therefore McD is not being transparant at all.

Frankly I'm puzzled by this.McDowell has provided a newspaper with a copy of the application and a photocopy of a passport photo.
McDowell is convinced based on that.
The DPP needs more and rightly so for a conviction for that offence.
Theres no lack of transparency as regards where McDowell has formed his view, he's up front about that.
He's also been up front as to the reasons for his actions.
Thats all transparent.

So he is guilty of the things McD states until he can prove he was not in Colombia and he did not try and get a fake passport?

You use the word guilty there even though he's above reproach on the passport issue.
McDowell hasnt a hope in hell of a conviction there based merely on the documents.
But where McDowell is winning is Connollys apparent inability to refute the possibility of him being in columbia by showing us the impossibility-a simple enough thing to do.

I would love to see the hatchet come down but Connolly not proving the statements are false does not mean he is guilty.

This guilty word is being thrown around like a misnomer.
McDowell may want him to be guilty of something that breaks the law, but he's on a hiding to nothing there.
Where McDowell is winning on this issue is Connolly's inability/refusal to show that he couldnt be in Columbia.
Now thats fishy.
There should be total transparency when it comes to the activities of the director of a body that is supposed to champion transparency.
Consorting with the farc would be a good reaon not to be transparent, it also would not be a good characteristic for the director of a private public inquiry body.
Ergo this needs to be cleared up and thats very simple for Connolly if he has nothing to hide.

flogen

Earthman, I agree with you that it would be easy for Connolly to give an alibi if he had one, but don't you think that this is not something that should be dealth with in this way? Should all suspected criminals be defending themselves outside of court, or be accused of crimes at all for that matter?

Of course this is turning into a trial by media, both sides are being tried. The fact is that this whole sham of an incident is being played out in the national press, and on websites like this one when it should be dealt with in a court house. Now every Journalist and forum poster alike has their view points on who should have done what, and because Sub judice isn't an issue they can argue their point until the cows come home.
Now no case will ever be brought against Connolly and so any conclusion that the majority of people in Ireland come to will be on the back of articles and features, is that not trial by media?
I do agree that the CPI has been damaged from this though, and no one can deny this, even if it wasn't McDowells intention from the beginning, I'm sure he's far from upset that the group will suffer as a result of his and in turn other peoples actions.

Zombrex

I don't agree with McDowell's tactics, but Connolly is a public figure, part of an important public body. Simply saying that until he is convicted in a court of law of having actually commited a crime he should continue on as normal is nonsense. A lot of public figures have stood down from positions long before any criminal proceedings have begun with them, or even when no criminal proceedings have ever been brought.

But at the same time the Minister can't just go around blabbering anything he likes about anyone without backing it up with the goods.

Cork

We need more people more like Michael McDowell in irish politics.

He was not afraid to stand up to SF/IRA by informing us about IRA criminal activity.

The opposition's attacks on him only highlight their own weaknesses.

[QUOTEBut where McDowell is winning is Connollys apparent inability to refute the possibility of him being in columbia by showing us the impossibility-a simple enough thing to do.[/QUOTE]

That is it in a nut shell.

Untill Connolly lets us know of his where abouts - Victory is McDowells.

monument

Cork wrote:

We need more people more like Michael McDowell in irish politics.

He was not afraid to stand up to SF/IRA by informing us about IRA criminal activity.

The opposition's attacks on him only highlight their own weaknesses.



That is it in a nut shell.

Untill Connolly lets us know of his where abouts - Victory is McDowells.

I dont like quoting myself, but it's worth saying this again....

monument wrote:

Cork, so, you have no problem with me saying he uses (some of) the same propaganda tactics Goebbels?

Like imagine if there was a poster here on boards who just posted the same lines over and over again, ie using ‘the Goebbels technique’.

flogen

flogen wrote:

Earthman, I agree with you that it would be easy for Connolly to give an alibi if he had one, but don't you think that this is not something that should be dealth with in this way? Should all suspected criminals be defending themselves outside of court, or be accused of crimes at all for that matter?

No they shouldnt.
That said McDowell will either rise or fall on this with the ultimate sanction being losing his seat.

Of course this is turning into a trial by media, both sides are being tried. The fact is that this whole sham of an incident is being played out in the national press, and on websites like this one when it should be dealt with in a court house.

Theres nothing to try

Now every Journalist and forum poster alike has their view points on who should have done what, and because Sub judice isn't an issue they can argue their point until the cows come home.
Now no case will ever be brought against Connolly and so any conclusion that the majority of people in Ireland come to will be on the back of articles and features, is that not trial by media?

Thats normal journalism to be honest.Connolly does have a question to answer and to be frank if he answered it, there would be no story other than coverage of the calls for McDowells resignation I would think.

I do agree that the CPI has been damaged from this though, and no one can deny this, even if it wasn't McDowells intention from the beginning, I'm sure he's far from upset that the group will suffer as a result of his and in turn other peoples actions.

It unfortunately appears quite telling of Connolly's disregard for the principal of a CPI that he would let it's reputation down by not being transparent as to his whereabouts in April and May 2001.
McDowell could have no truck with the CPI if it was directed by someone beyond reproach.
Connolly is not that someone whilst he continues to be non transparent.

flogen

Earthman wrote:

No they shouldnt.
That said McDowell will either rise or fall on this with the ultimate sanction being losing his seat.

I don't think this issue will decide his fate, I do think it will be one of the many aspects of his career that the voters will consider

Thats normal journalism to be honest.Connolly does have a question to answer and to be frank if he answered it, there would be no story other than coverage of the calls for McDowells resignation I would think.

Not really, journalism is based on the idea of reporting the facts and perhaps commenting on them. At present neither Connolly or McDowell have presented any real facts on the case, but given that McDowell is the one making the accusations shouldn't the burden be on him to back up his case?
Again, I agree that Connolly would be doing himself and the CIP a favour by telling his side of the story about being in Columbia, but at the same time he should never have been put in the position where he has to answer such accusations in public and so McDowell has been nothing but unprofessional from the outset.

And Cork, we don't need more people like McDowell, if every minister started calling people criminals in public without facts the courts would become a laughing stock and the very basis of democracy in this country would be under threat. If the DPP doesn't have a case to make against someone that doesn't give a minister the right to make his own. I can bet you that every working journalist in this country knows some things about public figures that they can't print. They're probably true but they don't have enough to back it up. If they did print it they'd lose their jobs at the very least.
If Connolly is the SF/IRA man you seem certain he is, shouldn't you be damning McDowell? He just ensured that that man will never do prison time for his acts against the state.