Is McDowell using (some of) Goebbels’ tactics?

monument

Earthman wrote:

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.

Yeah, that's why his actions are politics based on moral or ideological rather than practical considerations.

One way or another, this is trial by the media. With flimsy evidence, at best.

People have left their positions before for similar things, so what, others haven’t. And unless you’re going to give an exact example to compare, pointing out such is pointless. In fact, we could start raving about how McDowell should stand down.. because people have left their positions before for similar things.

Earthman wrote:

Thats normal journalism to be honest..

Something McDowell doesn’t want apparently, or at least he doesn’t want the police to leak info in the way he has.

The leaking of such info is, to him, only ok if he thinks so. Only ok if it suits him!

flogen

flogen wrote:

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

True.I dont think they'd be too impressed if he had to resign though.

Not really, journalism is based on the idea of reporting the facts and perhaps commenting on them.

Thats not strictly the case as they are reporting facts here , just unproven ones like it's a fact that McDowell believes Connolly was in Columbia based on the security video of the man that looks like Connolly without the glasses and taken in columbia and that the man had a false passport with a photo that also looks like connolly and the fact that Connolly could refute this assuming he wasnt there but he fishilly hasnt.

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 ?

McDowell has presented some facts albeit ones that are un proven.Connolly has also presented something unproven-a simple denial.

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

Why not? It is in the public interest, every person in the public domain and certainly every politician is open to scrutiny.Thats normal, its happened since politics began.

and so McDowell has been nothing but unprofessional from the outset.

I'll agree and have said many times, that his dealings with the newspapers was uncoot and wrong to say the least.
He should have sought advice from his AG and put the documents before the Dáil if his AG agreed.
It would appear that the AG would have had no issue with this given that Harney has said that no case is being prejudiced by the information being in the public domain.

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.

Apart from Adams ,McGuinness and Ferris who else and how often has McDowell named people as being involved in something illegal?? I'd like to hear this so as to determine the basis for this trend that is being mooted here.Two swallows dont make a summer.Theres a justifiable case in both of those instances being made for the outing.
The Adams et al "outing" whether you believe it or not is something thats been in the papers hundreds of times

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.

Well the SINDO and the Sunday World must be an exception.I couldnt even begin to count what they have printed on shakey foundations and without law suits.

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.

Thats directed at Cork but what I will say is this: Connolly was never in danger of being prosecuted for the passport as after nearly 5 years the DPP clearly hadnt enough evidence to tie it to him.
Ergo the prison time thing doesnt arise.
The Public interest issue as regards Connolly being in Columbia does though and its fishy that he has not declared how impossible it was that he was there.

monument

monument wrote:

Yeah, that's why his actions are politics based on moral or ideological rather than practical considerations.

How so?

One way or another, this is trial by the media. With flimsy evidence, at best.

how so ? If its that flimsy why the silence from Connolly ?

People have left their positions before for similar things, so what, others haven’t. And unless you’re going to give an exact example to compare, pointing out such is pointless. In fact, we could start raving about how McDowell should stand down.. because people have left their positions before for similar things.

You must mean the whole cabinet and the government as they are all aware of what McDowell was doing before he did it.

Something McDowell doesn’t want apparently, or at least he doesn’t want the police to leak info in the way he has.

The leaking of such info is, to him, only ok if he thinks so. Only ok if it suits him!

There is a big difference.
In Both cases simply handing something over to the press is wrong but there is a big difference.
As I pointed out in my last post McDowell should have went through normal channels with this.
It seems his AG wouldnt have minded.
He was utterly wrong to use the newspaper route in my opinion.
However he is stating exactly what he is doing and telling the public exactly why and to whom he gave the information.
Thats entirely different to a secret Garda leaking which has no peer review whatsoever and is completely untransparent.

flogen

Earthman wrote:

Thats not strictly the case as they are reporting facts here , just unproven ones like it's a fact that McDowell believes Connolly was in Columbia based on the security video of the man that looks like Connolly without the glasses and taken in columbia and that the man had a false passport with a photo that also looks like connolly and the fact that Connolly could refute this assuming he wasnt there but he fishilly hasnt. McDowell has presented some facts albeit ones that are un proven.Connolly has also presented something unproven-a simple denial.

Well it's still a trial by media, don't you think? I mean, the facts, as weak or as strong as they may be are being put into the media rather than before a court. The media is then consumed by the public who form their opinions based on a mixture of the evidence put forward, the way it was put by their paper of choice and their personal feelings about McDowell and the PD's or Connolly and SF.

Why not? It is in the public interest, every person in the public domain and certainly every politician is open to scrutiny.Thats normal, its happened since politics began.

Because it is the job of the DPP to accuse Connolly of any wrong doing, and they must do so in a court of law. It's not the job of the Minister to act and judge, jury and executioner, Connolly shouldn't be facing accusations from him.

I'll agree and have said many times, that his dealings with the newspapers was uncoot and wrong to say the least.
He should have sought advice from his AG and put the documents before the Dáil if his AG agreed.
It would appear that the AG would have had no issue with this given that Harney has said that no case is being prejudiced by the information being in the public domain.

Harney is twisting things a little there. She's saying there is no case at present that is being prejudiced by this information being in the public domain. The problem is that any hopes of a future case has now been destroyed.

Apart from Adams ,McGuinness and Ferris who else and how often has McDowell named people as being involved in something illegal?? I'd like to hear this so as to determine the basis for this trend that is being mooted here.Two swallows dont make a summer.Theres a justifiable case in both of those instances being made for the outing.
The Adams et al "outing" whether you believe it or not is something thats been in the papers hundreds of times

What, besides those other three people, when has he done it? The fact is that a Minister should never ever throw around names like he has done on two occasions now, it's just not his job. If he thinks these people are a threat to national security then he should push the police into getting the evidence they need to convict. Publically naming people as connected to terrorist organisations without solid enough evidence is almost as bad as internment in the sense that it's condemning people to a crime they haven't been convicted of.
Besides, I said if every minister did what McDowell has done the courts would be a laughing stock, I didn't say that he is always doing it.

Well the SINDO and the Sunday World must be an exception.I couldnt even begin to count what they have printed on shakey foundations and without law suits.

Such as? I know the Sindo for one is a pretty poor example of Irish Journalism, they seem to do the same as McDowell, use scraps of evidence to pin someone down. I'm just as critical of them as I am of McDowell, but I'm not paying their wages nor are they representing me in any way.

Thats directed at Cork but what I will say is this: Connolly was never in danger of being prosecuted for the passport as after nearly 5 years the DPP clearly hadnt enough evidence to tie it to him.
Ergo the prison time thing doesnt arise.
The Public interest issue as regards Connolly being in Columbia does though and its fishy that he has not declared how impossible it was that he was there.

Well as it stood he was in no danger of being convicted, but evidence could alway have come forward at a later date.
If there isn't enough evidence to prove something, it may be an issue for public interest but it isn't something that should be made public. I've made the point already but I'm certain there are many stories that are of public interest but that can't be printed for legal reasons.

monument

Earthman wrote:

How so?

It’s based on flimsy evidence.

Earthman wrote:

how so ? If its that flimsy why the silence from Connolly ?

If you can for a second agree it is flimsy, why would Connolly need to reply?

I’d be very cautious about outright defending Connolly at this stage, but with what McDowell has brought to light the minister is still in the wrong.

Earthman wrote:

You must mean the whole cabinet and the government as they are all aware of what McDowell was doing before he did it.

If all of this were enough for McDowell to stand down, wouldn’t it be enough for any one involved to also do the same? And wouldn’t the same apply to the CPI members?

Earthman wrote:

There is a big difference.
In Both cases simply handing something over to the press is wrong but there is a big difference.
As I pointed out in my last post McDowell should have went through normal channels with this.
It seems his AG wouldnt have minded.
He was utterly wrong to use the newspaper route in my opinion.
However he is stating exactly what he is doing and telling the public exactly why and to whom he gave the information.
Thats entirely different to a secret Garda leaking which has no peer review whatsoever and is completely untransparent.

No, there’s not. If it McDowell is wrong, it really doesn’t matter who stands by him. The same applies to Connolly.

If his peers (the government, the AG etc) were in on it, a ‘review’ from them isn’t going to amount to much. Unless they know more then they have made public, which would stand up in court. If so, it’s their fault for hiding such from the DPP.

monument

monument wrote:

It’s based on flimsy evidence.

I'd have thought that maybe a month ago and awaited Connolly's easy reply.

why would Connolly need to reply?

Transparency

I’d be very cautious about outright defending Connolly at this stage, but with what McDowell has brought to light the minister is still in the wrong.

I'd be equally cautious of defending McDowell and I wont to be honest other than to point out what he has said and what he says are his reasons.Beyond that theres a but and its a big But, theres a case to be answered as to why Chuck Feeney lost confidence in Connolly too.

If all of this were enough for McDowell to stand down, wouldn’t it be enough for any one involved to also do the same?

If connolly comes up with the beef yes

And wouldn’t the same apply to the CPI members?

If Connolly doesnt become transparent and simply stays underground on this then yes,I'd have to question their judgement.

No, there’s not. If it McDowell is wrong, it really doesn’t matter who stands by him. The same applies to Connolly.

The Garda secretly giving information is worse because theres no transparency about the wrong doing in that case.It's all done under cover of darkness.A Minister can be and is being called to account.
He's given his justification that a person who visits with the Farc is not a fit character to be a director or have access to the CPI.
That part is straight foward as is the non forthcoming rebuttal of it from Connolly.

If his peers (the government, the AG etc) were in on it, a ‘review’ from them isn’t going to amount to much. Unless they know more then they have made public, which would stand up in court. If so, it’s their fault for hiding such from the DPP.

The AG should be competent to advise as to whether it is ok to make information public.His advice will eventually be a matter of public record(albeit under the 30 year rule) for history to judge.
It will certainly be available to any future government not made up of the current parties.
I doubt we will get to ever see the deliberations around the board room of the CPI and its looking increasingly unlikely that we will ever see Connolly prove that he couldnt have been in Columbia but I hope I'm wrong in that.

flogen

flogen wrote:

Well it's still a trial by media, don't you think? I mean, the facts, as weak or as strong as they may be are being put into the media rather than before a court. The media is then consumed by the public who form their opinions based on a mixture of the evidence put forward, the way it was put by their paper of choice and their personal feelings about McDowell and the PD's or Connolly and SF.

I've seen little or no media coverage of this in a couple of weeks ergo its just a few articles in a paper and a big hoo hah that Connolly should quieten in one swoop by declaring he couldnt have been in Columbia. Otherwise he's blatantly damaging the CPI which could continue with him (if McDowell is wrong) or without him.

Because it is the job of the DPP to accuse Connolly of any wrong doing, and they must do so in a court of law. It's not the job of the Minister to act and judge, jury and executioner, Connolly shouldn't be facing accusations from him.

Why not? He's in the public domain.Politicians often face accusations with flimsy evidence.Indeed Frank Connolly himself accused Bertie Ahern in a national newspaper of taking bribes from a builder and was forced to withdraw the claim.
Why doesnt Connolly do the same given that his pot is as black as McDowells in terms of throwing accusations about?

Harney is twisting things a little there. She's saying there is no case at present that is being prejudiced by this information being in the public domain. The problem is that any hopes of a future case has now been destroyed.

She would have an AG's advice there.
Also using my own common sense, I'd say this was thrawled through with a fine tooth comb and nothing showed up.
The IRA would have plenty of experience in terms of how to cover up or launder a false passport application.

What, besides those other three people, when has he done it? The fact is that a Minister should never ever throw around names like he has done on two occasions now, it's just not his job.

You seriously think it's not a justice ministers job to impart information in the public interest? You'd be right if he did this willy nilly or if he did this without clearly setting out his reasons.I've yet to see a rebuttall of his reasons.Unfortunately the person that can adequately do that is staying quiet which is fishy.

If he thinks these people are a threat to national security then he should push the police into getting the evidence they need to convict. Publically naming people as connected to terrorist organisations without solid enough evidence is almost as bad as internment in the sense that it's condemning people to a crime they haven't been convicted of.

But you see, his intention is to be open and frank about what is in the public interest to know.The 3 people in question for obvious reasons would never be charged with membership of the IRA.
That said, its not only McDowell who is of the view who runs or has ran the IRA.I doubt you'd find an FF,FG or labour TD that would disagree with McDowell on that one.

Besides, I said if every minister did what McDowell has done the courts would be a laughing stock, I didn't say that he is always doing it.

I'd agree with you there if there was a pattern of this and/or if it could be shown that McDowell did this in the case of Connolly without logically explaining his reasons and he has done so.
I've yet to see a rebuttal of them.
If McDowell is right and Connolly was in Columbia, then he must have been there on a false passport as he couldnt have been there on his own passport as that would certainly have been revealed by the Columbians.Or if he used his own passport and was in columbia, then that would be one obvious reason for him to stay quiet.It wouldnt be the right thing to do either way though as its not transparency.

Such as? I know the Sindo for one is a pretty poor example of Irish Journalism, they seem to do the same as McDowell, use scraps of evidence to pin someone down. I'm just as critical of them as I am of McDowell, but I'm not paying their wages nor are they representing me in any way.

Several articles on the IRA and several articles on crime lords.
Many by Paul Williams, Is he a poor journalist?

Well as it stood he was in no danger of being convicted, but evidence could alway have come forward at a later date.
If there isn't enough evidence to prove something, it may be an issue for public interest but it isn't something that should be made public. I've made the point already but I'm certain there are many stories that are of public interest but that can't be printed for legal reasons.

Well I'd certainly be interested in who was in an influential position yet having close ties with subversives and I'm sure most people would be.

flogen

Earthman wrote:

I've seen little or no media coverage of this in a couple of weeks ergo its just a few articles in a paper and a big hoo hah that Connolly should quieten in one swoop by declaring he couldnt have been in Columbia. Otherwise he's blatantly damaging the CPI which could continue with him (if McDowell is wrong) or without him.

Any media coverage is enough in a case like this. Once the decision of who is guilty/not guilty is taken out of the courts hands and is passed onto the media through ministerial speeches it becomes a trial by media IMO.

Why not? He's in the public domain.Politicians often face accusations with flimsy evidence.Indeed Frank Connolly himself accused Bertie Ahern in a national newspaper of taking bribes from a builder and was forced to withdraw the claim.
Why doesnt Connolly do the same given that his pot is as black as McDowells in terms of throwing accusations about?

Bertie Ahern took legal action against Connolly which led to the claim being withdrawn. I'm not saying in another situation Connolly would do the same but he doesn't have any right to start civil action against McDowell because the comments have been covered by Dail Privilege, and once that is made public the papers are free to report it straight from his mouth without legal threat.

She would have an AG's advice there.
Also using my own common sense, I'd say this was thrawled through with a fine tooth comb and nothing showed up.
The IRA would have plenty of experience in terms of how to cover up or launder a false passport application.

You're probably right, but it still doesn't justify his actions. I'm sure plenty of Gardai would love to be able to do the same as McDowell has when they can't get enough evidence to convict people but given that freedom we'd have vigilantism very quickly.

You seriously think it's not a justice ministers job to impart information in the public interest? You'd be right if he did this willy nilly or if he did this without clearly setting out his reasons.I've yet to see a rebuttall of his reasons.Unfortunately the person that can adequately do that is staying quiet which is fishy. But you see, his intention is to be open and frank about what is in the public interest to know.The 3 people in question for obvious reasons would never be charged with membership of the IRA.
That said, its not only McDowell who is of the view who runs or has ran the IRA.I doubt you'd find an FF,FG or labour TD that would disagree with McDowell on that one.

No, I think it's the ministers job to act in the interest of the public and the job of the Justice ministers to protect them. If Connolly was a threat he should be monitored by Gardai until he reveals himself as one, if Gardai have reason to believe he is using the CPI to gather information on TD's then they should try and get a search warrent. A Journalists job is to report matters of public interest to the public; most sensible ministers would leak information and remain anonymous which is why I find it hard to condemn him for the passport leak. Most great news stories and finds wouldn't exists without the leaks of TD's or high ranking officials. It's just that McDowell has abused his position and privileges, he is a public servent and has (arguably) greater sway than most Journalists, he also isn't employed to spread no better than rumours. What I find fishy is this; if he was concerned about public safety why didn't he do his best to catch Connolly while leaking information anon. about him, information that was in the public interest? Why did he go public and, knowing he could not be sued, attack Connolly in public? I'd wager it was because he knew his influence would far outweigh the lack of evidence while a journalist would just get shot down and sued.

I'd agree with you there if there was a pattern of this and/or if it could be shown that McDowell did this in the case of Connolly without logically explaining his reasons and he has done so.
I've yet to see a rebuttal of them.

Well even if each minister did it as many times as he has, you'd see 26 cases that would probably be ruined for the court, and 26 people (or more) that would be forced to defend something that hasn't been backed up.

If McDowell is right and Connolly was in Columbia, then he must have been there on a false passport as he couldnt have been there on his own passport as that would certainly have been revealed by the Columbians.Or if he used his own passport and was in columbia, then that would be one obvious reason for him to stay quiet.It wouldnt be the right thing to do either way though as its not transparency.

I'm not quite getting the point of this. If Connolly was in Columbia on a false passport or was aiding terrorists then he should face fair and due process. I agree that his lack of transparency raises questions about his involvement with the CPI and the CPI as a whole, but that is not as public a matter as the actions of a wage taking minister.

Several articles on the IRA and several articles on crime lords.
Many by Paul Williams, Is he a poor journalist?

I haven't read many Paul Williams articles, I know he's a successful Journalist and while that doesn't mean good the fact that he has had his life threatened so often would imply that he is hitting a nerve.
Besides that, people who wright about the IRA aren't going to face civil action, who is going to challenge them? P O'Neill? Many suspected crime lords have sued newspapers too and won but I don't see where the connection here is with McDowell. As I said I would be critical of these types of journalists just the same, but they're not paid for by the public like Ministers are, and their job description is very different to that of politicians.

Well I'd certainly be interested in who was in an influential position yet having close ties with subversives and I'm sure most people would be.

It's not a matter of it being in the public interest, as I said. It's a matter of being able to prove your case in a libel action later on. If it weren't for Dail Privilege McDowell wouldn't have said what he said because he would have faced legal action from Connolly. I'd say (and I'm speculating here) that many public figures would be brought down if Journalists faced the same freedom that McDowell does.

flogen

flogen wrote:

Any media coverage is enough in a case like this. Once the decision of who is guilty/not guilty is taken out of the courts hands and is passed onto the media through ministerial speeches it becomes a trial by media IMO.

I dont see how,Connolly would be received with open arms by the Sunday Business post probably with the scoop that kills off the allegation, assuming the scoop exists.

Bertie Ahern took legal action against Connolly which led to the claim being withdrawn. I'm not saying in another situation Connolly would do the same but he doesn't have any right to start civil action against McDowell because the comments have been covered by Dail Privilege, and once that is made public the papers are free to report it straight from his mouth without legal threat.

Actually the allegations were made first in the sunday indo way back in 2001 and have been repeated on the radio several times by Sam Smyth.Theres plenty of scope there for a law suit especially with the killer bit of evedence regarding Connolly's impossiblity of having been in Columbia.

You're probably right, but it still doesn't justify his actions. I'm sure plenty of Gardai would love to be able to do the same as McDowell has when they can't get enough evidence to convict people but given that freedom we'd have vigilantism very quickly.

and I've yet to see a trend from McDowell of doing this.
All I've seen so far is him clearly walking the public through every step he has taken and why.
That doesnt excuse some of it but it mitigates a lot of it if Connolly doesnt come up with the goods.

No, I think it's the ministers job to act in the interest of the public and the job of the Justice ministers to protect them.

I'm not sure I follow you there, what exactly do you mean?

If Connolly was a threat he should be monitored by Gardai until he reveals himself as one, if Gardai have reason to believe he is using the CPI to gather information on TD's then they should try and get a search warrent.

I dont think its his actions in the CPI to date that concerned the minister, its whether he was a fit person to be directing it.

A Journalists job is to report matters of public interest to the public; most sensible ministers would leak information and remain anonymous which is why I find it hard to condemn him for the passport leak. Most great news stories and finds wouldn't exists without the leaks of TD's or high ranking officials. It's just that McDowell has abused his position and privileges, he is a public servent and has (arguably) greater sway than most Journalists, he also isn't employed to spread no better than rumours.

I dont see that he has given an opinion based on the evidence in front of him.Nobody has to agree with it and he is entitled to put it in front of the Dáil.He wasnt right in my opinion to go the newspaper route aswell with it.

What I find fishy is this; if he was concerned about public safety why didn't he do his best to catch Connolly while leaking information anon. about him, information that was in the public interest? Why did he go public and, knowing he could not be sued, attack Connolly in public? I'd wager it was because he knew his influence would far outweigh the lack of evidence while a journalist would just get shot down and sued.

Sam Smyth afaik hasnt been sued, and neither has any journalist connecting people to the head of the IRA so that has never been an issue.

Well even if each minister did it as many times as he has, you'd see 26 cases that would probably be ruined for the court, and 26 people (or more) that would be forced to defend something that hasn't been backed up.

But each minister did and were complicit in this.McDowell would have been sacked,I've no doubt about it, if he leaked information without the Taoiseachs knowledge.

I'm not quite getting the point of this. If Connolly was in Columbia on a false passport or was aiding terrorists then he should face fair and due process.

For what like? the point is simple.He's not going to admit that he was doing that.But he should come with the goods to show that he couldnt have been there at the time alledged , otherwise it begs the question-why? and it lacks transparency.

I agree that his lack of transparency raises questions about his involvement with the CPI and the CPI as a whole, but that is not as public a matter as the actions of a wage taking minister.

It is when you want to direct a public inquiry body that holds transparency and the lack of coruption as a goal.

I haven't read many Paul Williams articles, I know he's a successful Journalist and while that doesn't mean good the fact that he has had his life threatened so often would imply that he is hitting a nerve.
Besides that, people who wright about the IRA aren't going to face civil action, who is going to challenge them? P O'Neill? Many suspected crime lords have sued newspapers too and won but I don't see where the connection here is with McDowell. As I said I would be critical of these types of journalists just the same, but they're not paid for by the public like Ministers are, and their job description is very different to that of politicians.

They are investigative journalists and it would be hard to knock the credibility of Paul Williams to be honest.
As for ministers, they are public elected officials.If they dont have to uphold and protect whats in the public interest,I dont know who does.

It's not a matter of it being in the public interest, as I said. It's a matter of being able to prove your case in a libel action later on. If it weren't for Dail Privilege McDowell wouldn't have said what he said because he would have faced legal action from Connolly. I'd say (and I'm speculating here) that many public figures would be brought down if Journalists faced the same freedom that McDowell does.

How is an allegation of an association with Farc not in the public interest?
If Connolly is/was involved with them and now wants to run a body like the CPI,I think it's imperative that those reading their reports know what the CPI's directors background is.
It's imperative that he clears it up with the simple proof that he couldnt have been in Columbia in May and june of 2001- otherwise McDowell is vindicated in the accusation though he will still deserve flack for his leak to the newspaper.

flogen

Earthman wrote:

I dont see how,Connolly would be received with open arms by the Sunday Business post probably with the scoop that kills off the allegation, assuming the scoop exists.

You misunderstand what I'm saying about a trial by media. I'm not going to say that the minister has escaped criticism, both sides have their supporters and critics, but the fact is that this case is being heard in the public media. I'm not suggesting for one minute that Connolly is being treated well in that media, but that it shouldn't be an issue for newspapers to discuss and for the public to conclude on, it should be the courts.

Actually the allegations were made first in the sunday indo way back in 2001 and have been repeated on the radio several times by Sam Smyth.Theres plenty of scope there for a law suit especially with the killer bit of evedence regarding Connolly's impossiblity of having been in Columbia.

I'll take your word for that, but it still doesn't excuse the Minister for doing it. I've said twice already that I would be critical of any journalist or newspaper, or anyone for that matter, that would jump to conclusions based on flimsy evidence. I would expect a journalist to write a piece saying "a highly placed source close to the minister for justice has claimed that... on the basis of x, y and z", were these 2001 allegations related to the passport leak?

and I've yet to see a trend from McDowell of doing this.
All I've seen so far is him clearly walking the public through every step he has taken and why.
That doesnt excuse some of it but it mitigates a lot of it if Connolly doesnt come up with the goods.

So McDowell gets off the hook because Connolly has decided not to speak? I agree with you that Connolly is damaging himself by staying quiet, and he may be doing so because he has no alibi or maybe he has some odd sense of personal pride where he refuses to answer what he sees as gossip trying to damage his name. I would like to see him give his side of the story but in reality all he's damaging is his own reputation, he's not doing damage to the political or legal process like McDowell's actions could.

I'm not sure I follow you there, what exactly do you mean? I dont think its his actions in the CPI to date that concerned the minister, its whether he was a fit person to be directing it. I dont see that he has given an opinion based on the evidence in front of him.Nobody has to agree with it and he is entitled to put it in front of the Dáil.He wasnt right in my opinion to go the newspaper route aswell with it.

Well it's none of his business if he's fit to head the CPI, unless he wants to get personal about these things. From what I understand McDowell sees his position as head of the CPI as a threat to national security, hence his interest. Now he hasn't gone into detail on how he is a threat but I'd imagine he fears Connolly is part of the alleged SF/IRA ring who are gather information on ministers to blackmail them in the future. If he can prove that he is a threat to national security maybe his comments can be justified, but other than that he shouldn't have said anything. Put up or shut up, i believe they say.

Sam Smyth afaik hasnt been sued, and neither has any journalist connecting people to the head of the IRA so that has never been an issue.

That's the decision of the men being accused, Connolly included. It doesn't justify the actions of McDowell one bit though.

But each minister did and were complicit in this.McDowell would have been sacked,I've no doubt about it, if he leaked information without the Taoiseachs knowledge.

Well, maybe if he leaked information without the Taoiseach knowing and was then caught, which should only happen if the Journalist revealed him. In reality Bertie wouldn't care anyway, unless the info he leaked was critical of the FF/PD government.

For what like? the point is simple.He's not going to admit that he was doing that.But he should come with the goods to show that he couldnt have been there at the time alledged , otherwise it begs the question-why? and it lacks transparency. It is when you want to direct a public inquiry body that holds transparency and the lack of coruption as a goal.

What do you mean 'for what'? Why should he face fair and due process? For the crimes he has allegedly committed.

They are investigative journalists and it would be hard to knock the credibility of Paul Williams to be honest.
As for ministers, they are public elected officials.If they dont have to uphold and protect whats in the public interest,I dont know who does.

They should but not by abusing their powers. McDowell has said he has a right to do what he has done to protect national security but he has failed to explain how he has done that. He must protect the public interest by making decisions and ensuring that the laws are in place to protect them adequetly, also he is one of the people who holds the Gardai to account. He is not there to point fingers without evidence.

How is an allegation of an association with Farc not in the public interest?
If Connolly is/was involved with them and now wants to run a body like the CPI,I think it's imperative that those reading their reports know what the CPI's directors background is.

Agreed, but I still don't think it's the place of the minister to make these accusations without evidence. It "subverts the course of justice" so to speak, in that it ignores the need for evidence when condemning somebody.

It's imperative that he clears it up with the simple proof that he couldnt have been in Columbia in May and june of 2001- otherwise McDowell is vindicated in the accusation though he will still deserve flack for his leak to the newspaper.

I think he should tell the public where he was, although he doesn't have to. I also agree that if he doesn't then McDowell will get away with it, but I don't think he's vindicated as a result. Leaking to the newspaper was one thing, but accusing someone of being a threat to national security without explaining how that is is another altogether. McDowell will probably get away with it and Connolly is looking likely to stay quiet on the matter, but that doesn't vindicate McDowell for what he has done nor does it make him right.

flogen

flogen wrote:

You misunderstand what I'm saying about a trial by media. I'm not going to say that the minister has escaped criticism, both sides have their supporters and critics, but the fact is that this case is being heard in the public media. I'm not suggesting for one minute that Connolly is being treated well in that media, but that it shouldn't be an issue for newspapers to discuss and for the public to conclude on, it should be the courts.

What have the courts to decide on here though?
Nothing
The passport issue is going nowhere and being in Columbia with the Farc is not a crime here, it's just not something to have on your CV if you are going to head up a body one of whose goals is transparency.

I'll take your word for that, but it still doesn't excuse the Minister for doing it.

Yeah we agree on the fact that he shouldnt have provided this information to a newspaper.

I've said twice already that I would be critical of any journalist or newspaper, or anyone for that matter, that would jump to conclusions based on flimsy evidence.

Some are, some arent.The minister has made a conclusion, but then he has had the benefit of a chat with Chuck Feeney who as I understand it hasnt put all the results of his inquires into the public domain.The minister therefore at least to that level has more to base his conclusion on than we have.
We do however have the results of Feeneys investigations ie what he decided was the prudent thing to do-he withdrew Funding after Connolly refused to step down.

You an I would expect a journalist to write a piece saying "a highly placed source close to the minister for justice has claimed that... on the basis of x, y and z", were these 2001 allegations related to the passport leak ?

Well they could name the source if they wanted to.The source is definitely named here obviously.

So McDowell gets off the hook because Connolly has decided not to speak? I agree with you that Connolly is damaging himself by staying quiet, and he may be doing so because he has no alibi or maybe he has some odd sense of personal pride where he refuses to answer what he sees as gossip trying to damage his name. I would like to see him give his side of the story but in reality all he's damaging is his own reputation,

and that of the CPI

he's not doing damage to the political or legal process like McDowell's actions could.

How is the political or legal process damaged? Theres no legal case-the DPP has not proferred charges in 5 years ultimately because a false passport organised by the IRA would be surgically well done.

Well it's none of his business if he's fit to head the CPI, unless he wants to get personal about these things.

with respect thats nonsense.Of course it's the minister for justice's business and the governments business if they think someone with subversive links is at the tiller of a body with huge financial resources and that styles itself as a body that can inquire into whatever it likes.A body that will produce reports via the work of investigative journalists being directed by subversives and whose internal controls are directed by subversives?? If thats the case-no thanks Society could do without that.

From what I understand McDowell sees his position as head of the CPI as a threat to national security, hence his interest. Now he hasn't gone into detail on how he is a threat but I'd imagine he fears Connolly is part of the alleged SF/IRA ring who are gather information on ministers to blackmail them in the future. If he can prove that he is a threat to national security maybe his comments can be justified, but other than that he shouldn't have said anything. Put up or shut up, i believe they say.

I dont think anything should be swept under the carpet in such a manner to be honest with you.
The transparency should be total and complete.The issue is the subversive link with the Farc and the IRA and should be easily put to bed.

That's the decision of the men being accused, Connolly included. It doesn't justify the actions of McDowell one bit though.

You think a government should govern without the public interest in mind??They should leave things paddle along without any intervention untill a problem festers?
I have the opposite view and I think McDowells actions stand or fall based on what Connolly says.

Well, maybe if he leaked information without the Taoiseach knowing and was then caught, which should only happen if the Journalist revealed him. In reality Bertie wouldn't care anyway, unless the info he leaked was critical of the FF/PD government.

Thats irrelevant though as the fact is, this whole thing was discussed at Cabinet before it hit the headlines again.

What do you mean 'for what'? Why should he face fair and due process? For the crimes he has allegedly committed.

what crimes? He's not charged with anything and the DPP has had the file for 5 years nearly.
Ergo the only question here is his inability or rather what seems increasingly like a fishy refusal to define where he was in April/May 2001.
An association with the Farc is not compatable with a directorship of the CPI.

They should but not by abusing their powers. McDowell has said he has a right to do what he has done to protect national security but he has failed to explain how he has done that. He must protect the public interest by making decisions and ensuring that the laws are in place to protect them adequetly, also he is one of the people who holds the Gardai to account. He is not there to point fingers without evidence.

McDowell has been clear.
He has said putting the resources of the CPI into the directorship of a subversive is against the public interest and a national security issue.
A subversive would not be of suffecient character to be in charge of the facilities or trusted to make proper use of them.
That all falls asunder when Connolly shows he couldnt have been in Columbia.
I have to question why this simple explanation isnt forthcoming.

Agreed, but I still don't think it's the place of the minister to make these accusations without evidence. It "subverts the course of justice" so to speak, in that it ignores the need for evidence when condemning somebody.

You cant subvert a justice system when it has given up on involvement due to a lack of proof.

I think he should tell the public where he was,

Agreed but he shouldnt just say it, he should show it to be the case.

although he doesn't have to.

That much is appearing obvious to the sad detriment of the credibility[Read: casualty] of the CPI.

I also agree that if he doesn't then McDowell will get away with it, but I don't think he's vindicated as a result.

He would be in relation to the Farc accusation

Leaking to the newspaper was one thing, but accusing someone of being a threat to national security without explaining how that is is another altogether. McDowell will probably get away with it and Connolly is looking likely to stay quiet on the matter, but that doesn't vindicate McDowell for what he has done nor does it make him right.

I've already went into that and have yet to see a rebuttal from any source.
His motive is clear: He's convinced that Connolly was in Columbia and he doesnt think thats good for the CPI.
If he's right, then he's vindicated.
Theres only one road to travel to prove him wrong and as you know it's fishilly not being travelled.

flogen

Earthman wrote:

What have the courts to decide on here though?
Nothing
The passport issue is going nowhere and being in Columbia with the Farc is not a crime here, it's just not something to have on your CV if you are going to head up a body one of whose goals is transparency.

But why not? I mean, it's not something many would be proud of, but what is it about dealing with the Farc that makes you a threat to national security here and now? This all goes back to the theory that the IRA are gathering dirt on politicians for use as blackmail, and the worry that Connolly is using the CPI as a way of gathering such dirt. So why isn't something being done to investigate the CPI's actions?

Yeah we agree on the fact that he shouldnt have provided this information to a newspaper.

Not really, I think I have more of a problem with his comments in the Dail. I I also think that if he had any sense he would have released the information anonymously, with or without the cabinets approval, that's irrelevant. It's not his job to pursue the cases that the DPP can't, it's his job to make it as easy as possible for them to convict. His speech did the opposite IMO.

Some are, some arent.The minister has made a conclusion, but then he has had the benefit of a chat with Chuck Feeney who as I understand it hasnt put all the results of his inquires into the public domain.The minister therefore at least to that level has more to base his conclusion on than we have.
We do however have the results of Feeneys investigations ie what he decided was the prudent thing to do-he withdrew Funding after Connolly refused to step down.

I'm not sure what enquiries Feeney made, all I know is that he decided to withdraw the funding. Did he say it was because Connolly refused to step down or was it because he refused to give his alibi?

Well they could name the source if they wanted to.The source is definitely named here obviously.

Why would a Journalist name their source, especially for no reason? I know that if I had a Minister as a source and they gave me a good story I wouldn't name them, simply because you'd burn that bridge. Do you mean the source of McDowells claims is named here, or something else?

How is the political or legal process damaged? Theres no legal case-the DPP has not proferred charges in 5 years ultimately because a false passport organised by the IRA would be surgically well done.

Because it sets a precident, if you can't get enough evidence to secure a conviction in the courts you should just publicly slate somebody so they are convicted in the eyes of the public. There are reasons why the DPP refused to start a case, and McDowell seems to ignore them. While I agree that Connolly should have spoken up by now, he has been put in a situation where he has to defend his name against nothing.
Out of interest, what would satisfy you in a response? I don't mean that in any silly way, I'd obviously like to see Connolly come out with more than "I was at a friends house", however I don't think he should ever have been put in the position where he needs to defend himself via the media. (but we're going over old ground here)

with respect thats nonsense.Of course it's the minister for justice's business and the governments business if they think someone with subversive links is at the tiller of a body with huge financial resources and that styles itself as a body that can inquire into whatever it likes.A body that will produce reports via the work of investigative journalists being directed by subversives and whose internal controls are directed by subversives?? If thats the case-no thanks Society could do without that. I dont think anything should be swept under the carpet in such a manner to be honest with you.
The transparency should be total and complete.The issue is the subversive link with the Farc and the IRA and should be easily put to bed.

I don't think that, no, I know that McDowell doesn't have the evidence to prove subversive links. All he has are some half arsed links between Connolly and a false passport. Connolly has denied travelling to Columbia and using a false passport, and while that doesn't prove McDowell is lying it certainly doesn't prove anything else. Just as Connolly could easily end this, McDowell should be able to easily prove it, but he can't. He's relying on Columbian evidence which is questionable at best.

You think a government should govern without the public interest in mind??They should leave things paddle along without any intervention untill a problem festers?
I have the opposite view and I think McDowells actions stand or fall based on what Connolly says.

I never said that, so please don't pretend that I did. I think that the government should naturally act with the public interest in mind but that they should not resort to a name and shame campaign just because they can't get enough court-worthy evidence. They should be working with the Gardai to target these threats. If the CPI, under the direction of Connolly is trying to subvert national institutions through blackmail etc., why not raid their offices? Is it Connolly that is a threat to national security or the group he directs? Or Both?

Thats irrelevant though as the fact is, this whole thing was discussed at Cabinet before it hit the headlines again.

Ok, I was just making a point about ministers acting as sources.

what crimes? He's not charged with anything and the DPP has had the file for 5 years nearly.
Ergo the only question here is his inability or rather what seems increasingly like a fishy refusal to define where he was in April/May 2001.
An association with the Farc is not compatable with a directorship of the CPI.

I, once again, agree with you that Connolly's silence is not helping himself or the CPI. My issue is with McDowell and his use of his privilege to publicly blacken a man without evidence. As far as I'm concerned if the courts won't hear it then there is no case to be heard at all. If Connolly is a threat to national security then he's done more than travelled on a false passport.

McDowell has been clear.
He has said putting the resources of the CPI into the directorship of a subversive is against the public interest and a national security issue.
A subversive would not be of suffecient character to be in charge of the facilities or trusted to make proper use of them.
That all falls asunder when Connolly shows he couldnt have been in Columbia.
I have to question why this simple explanation isnt forthcoming.

I would question that too, but if Connolly is a subversive then there must be more than a CCTV picture of someone like him available to prove it? Even with the IRA's clinical ability to clean up after themselves, what else is there? I find it hard to believe that Frank Connolly, threat to national security has only travelled to Columbia to speak to FARC.
Look at it this way, even if he had done a deal with FARC, how is that a threat to national security? Sure it's abhorrent, but I assume McDowell feels that this man with a dodgy past is abusing his position to manipulate reports and gather information for blackmail. That would be a threat to national security and I think something real should be done about it (action, not words)

You cant subvert a justice system when it has given up on involvement due to a lack of proof.

You can when you decide to ignore it because it's not giving you the result you want.

I don't believe that McDowell will be vindicated unless it can be proven that Connolly is/was a threat to national security, not if it can't be proven that he isn't.

I think this whole issue has gotten quite muddled, so let me spell out my position. Frank Connolly should have made his wherabouts clear by now, and his silence is damaging himself, his case and the CPI. McDowell shouldn't have used his position to do what he did in the Dail unless he could prove without doubt (or at least with more of a solid base) that Connolly was a threat (at which point I'd hope the courts would be able to do something). McDowell leaking information to the newspapers doesn't really irk me quite so much, I guess I would be hypocritical to say it did. Ministers do it all the time.

Diorraing

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.

Ha ha. Fantastic. Thank you for sorting that out for me. The logic of the pro McDowell camp has finally clicked with me. He stood up to the IRA therefore he must be right! He should definately be allowed run around accusing all sorts of people with all sorts of crime without any evidence whatsoever! Couldn't agree more with you, we absolutely need more polititians like that. Who cares if he violates our principles of justice - This it the guy who stood up to SF/IRA. Lets get in touch with Bennedict while we're at it and get this guy beatified.
I hate to sound sarcastic but, with all due respect, defending this guy on the grounds that he "stood up to the IRA" really isn't good enough.

Cork wrote:

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

Wrong. There are no winners in this debacle. Only losers - the principle loser being our legal system.

flogen

flogen wrote:

But why not? I mean, it's not something many would be proud of, but what is it about dealing with the Farc that makes you a threat to national security here and now?

Ah come on now Flogen.
The farc are in the here and now, if you subscribe to the bird watching excuse the columbia 3 originally put out,or the notion that the Farc and the IRA are partners in a columbian peace process then good luck to you on that belief,I'm not even going to bother you with it.

This all goes back to the theory that the IRA are gathering dirt on politicians for use as blackmail, and the worry that Connolly is using the CPI as a way of gathering such dirt. So why isn't something being done to investigate the CPI's actions?

Nope it has to do with whether active subversives ie those training the farc and getting paid with drug money for it should be directing the CPI.

Not really, I think I have more of a problem with his comments in the Dail. I I also think that if he had any sense he would have released the information anonymously, with or without the cabinets approval, that's irrelevant. It's not his job to pursue the cases that the DPP can't, it's his job to make it as easy as possible for them to convict. His speech did the opposite IMO.

In other words he should be transparent.
I'd have to fervently disagree with you there for obvious reasons.

I'm not sure what enquiries Feeney made, all I know is that he decided to withdraw the funding. Did he say it was because Connolly refused to step down or was it because he refused to give his alibi?

Both.

Why would a Journalist name their source, especially for no reason? I know that if I had a Minister as a source and they gave me a good story I wouldn't name them, simply because you'd burn that bridge. Do you mean the source of McDowells claims is named here, or something else?

The latter.

Because it sets a precident, if you can't get enough evidence to secure a conviction in the courts you should just publicly slate somebody so they are convicted in the eyes of the public. There are reasons why the DPP refused to start a case, and McDowell seems to ignore them. While I agree that Connolly should have spoken up by now, he has been put in a situation where he has to defend his name against nothing.

I'd like to point out to you that the CPI is only in existence since last february and is at the nub of what has brought this to the ministers attention.
Hence the recent activity regarding public interest.
Ergo it appears that the directorship of the CPI is the driving force here otherwise McDowell would have been on about Connolly years ago.

Out of interest, what would satisfy you in a response? I don't mean that in any silly way, I'd obviously like to see Connolly come out with more than "I was at a friends house", however I don't think he should ever have been put in the position where he needs to defend himself via the media. (but we're going over old ground here)

There are many and simple ways(bank and credit card statements, attendences at clubs,swipe cards etc etc etc) of establishing a presence somewhere other than Columbia at that time.I know I could do it and so could most.

I don't think that, no, I know that McDowell doesn't have the evidence to prove subversive links. All he has are some half arsed links between Connolly and a false passport. Connolly has denied travelling to Columbia and using a false passport, and while that doesn't prove McDowell is lying it certainly doesn't prove anything else. Just as Connolly could easily end this, McDowell should be able to easily prove it, but he can't. He's relying on Columbian evidence which is questionable at best.

Uhm what makes you think McDowell can tie Connolly to a passport when the DPP can't?

I never said that, so please don't pretend that I did. I think that the government should naturally act with the public interest in mind but that they should not resort to a name and shame campaign just because they can't get enough court-worthy evidence.

You keep mentioning the court when theres no crime.
The question is simple was he or was he not in Columbia.

They should be working with the Gardai to target these threats. If the CPI, under the direction of Connolly is trying to subvert national institutions through blackmail etc., why not raid their offices? Is it Connolly that is a threat to national security or the group he directs? Or Both?

The CPI has only been around since February.
A subversive wouldnt immediately direct it to do something dodgy.That would be self defeating.
A subversive shouldnt be involved with it period.

I, once again, agree with you that Connolly's silence is not helping himself or the CPI. My issue is with McDowell and his use of his privilege to publicly blacken a man without evidence.

Theres two tangoing here and one of them is declaring a public interest, the other doesnt seem to care at all.

As far as I'm concerned if the courts won't hear it then there is no case to be heard at all. If Connolly is a threat to national security then he's done more than travelled on a false passport.

But the very point is transparency and fitness to be in charge of a resource such as the CPI given what it does.
A threat doesnt equate to a deed you know but it is a precurser.

I would question that too, but if Connolly is a subversive then there must be more than a CCTV picture of someone like him available to prove it? Even with the IRA's clinical ability to clean up after themselves, what else is there? I find it hard to believe that Frank Connolly, threat to national security has only travelled to Columbia to speak to FARC.

Bird watching maybe ?

Look at it this way, even if he had done a deal with FARC, how is that a threat to national security? Sure it's abhorrent, but I assume McDowell feels that this man with a dodgy past is abusing his position to manipulate reports and gather information for blackmail. That would be a threat to national security and I think something real should be done about it (action, not words)

You seem to be completely missing my point.
It's whether a subversive should have the direction of a body such as this or not.
I think not,I think most people would think not.
The simple clarification from Connolly is not forthcoming.

You can when you decide to ignore it because it's not giving you the result you want.

McDowell only entered this fray after the CPI was established and thats 4 years after the alledged columbia trip.

I don't believe that McDowell will be vindicated unless it can be proven that Connolly is/was a threat to national security, not if it can't be proven that he isn't.

Well you dont think his lack of transparency here is an issue then.
My standards would demand it tbh.I think its essential for the director of a body that styles itself as championing transparency should himself be transparent.
You obviously dont.
Another clear disagreement to which there is no middle ground.

I think this whole issue has gotten quite muddled, so let me spell out my position. Frank Connolly should have made his wherabouts clear by now, and his silence is damaging himself, his case and the CPI. McDowell shouldn't have used his position to do what he did in the Dail unless he could prove without doubt (or at least with more of a solid base) that Connolly was a threat (at which point I'd hope the courts would be able to do something). McDowell leaking information to the newspapers doesn't really irk me quite so much, I guess I would be hypocritical to say it did. Ministers do it all the time.

I see so you have no problem with a minister leaking information to put out an accusation publically but you do when they are up front about it and say they are doing it.
That to me to be frank with you is uniquely strange view.

flogen

Earthman wrote:

Ah come on now Flogen.
The farc are in the here and now, if you subscribe to the bird watching excuse the columbia 3 originally put out,or the notion that the Farc and the IRA are partners in a columbian peace process then good luck to you on that belief,I'm not even going to bother you with it.

While the Columbia three don't factor directly into this discussion I will make it clear that I don't believe the bird watching excuse for one second.

Nope it has to do with whether active subversives ie those training the farc and getting paid with drug money for it should be directing the CPI.

That doesn't make him a threat to national security, it makes him an international drug dealer (or no better than one). If he is recieving drug money from Farc that doesn't make him a threat here, but it would in Columbia I guess. His job wouldn't make a difference either, it's how he is using his position to become a threat that matters. McDowell has made it clear that he sees Connolly as a threat to national security because of his placement at the CPI, this would suggest to me that he fears that he is using his position to manipulate reports, dig dirt on public officials and generally abuse the system for the good of SF. He may well be doing this and if he is I want action, because frankly outing Frank Connolly wouldn't stop the IRA from their goals, they'd just find another stooge.

Ergo it appears that the directorship of the CPI is the driving force here otherwise McDowell would have been on about Connolly years ago.

So what is Connolly doing in the CPI that makes him a threat? And what is being done about it besides a name and shame?

There are many and simple ways(bank and credit card statements, attendences at clubs,swipe cards etc etc etc) of establishing a presence somewhere other than Columbia at that time.I know I could do it and so could most.

Ok.

Uhm what makes you think McDowell can tie Connolly to a passport when the DPP can't?

Well he seems pretty certain it's him.

The CPI has only been around since February.
A subversive wouldnt immediately direct it to do something dodgy.That would be self defeating.
A subversive shouldnt be involved with it period.

That's arguable, but I can understand your reasoning behind it.
I also agree that a subversive shouldn't be involved period, but even if Connolly is in the pay of Farc, he is a Columbian subversive and not an Irish one, that crime has nothing to do with subversion in Ireland.

You seem to be completely missing my point.
It's whether a subversive should have the direction of a body such as this or not.
I think not,I think most people would think not.
The simple clarification from Connolly is not forthcoming.

I want to make this clear, I agree that Connolly should make his whereabouts known and I agree from my own perspective that anyone in the pocket of Farc should not be in charge of the CPI (I say that for numerous reasons, one being the fact that I see potential in a group like the CPI and would hate to see it die because of an outside controversy). However, and playing devils advocate to some degree, McDowell made his claims on the basis that Connolly was a threat to national security. I don't believe that being paid by Farc makes you a threat to national security in Ireland, it just makes you a generally dodgy person. The fact is that an Irishman being paid by Farc is 99.9% certain to be connected to the IRA and so would have more than this operation under his belt, so if you can show that they were paid by Farc you can assume they have other things going on in Ireland. However, Irish law doesn't work under assumptions and if McDowell came to the conclusion that Connolly was a threat to Irish security because he may have been in Columbia and he may have been in contact with Farc then I think he has done a great dis-service to his position as Minister of Justice and has damaged the Irish legal process. However if he has something else on Connolly which would prove a connection to actual subversion within Ireland and he is a threat to national security then 1) what is actually being done about it and 2) has he ruined any future case of the state against Connolly on matters of subversion (not connected to the passport)?

Well you dont think his lack of transparency here is an issue then.
My standards would demand it tbh.I think its essential for the director of a body that styles itself as championing transparency should himself be transparent.
You obviously dont.
Another clear disagreement to which there is no middle ground.

No I do. I agree with you that it is vital for transparency, but the same goes for McDowell. Why is Connolly a threat to national security and what is being done about it?

I see so you have no problem with a minister leaking information to put out an accusation publically but you do when they are up front about it and say they are doing it.
That to me to be frank with you is uniquely strange view.

No, I never criticised McDowell for leaking to a newspaper, I criticised him for using Dail Privilege to make accusations he can't prove and using his influence to try and get it believed as fact. What he leaked may have been against the rules but it wasn't a lie, he leaked the evidence available.
I wouldn't say I have no problem with it, I'm just saying it is a fact of politics that politicians leak things, usually to damage an opponent, sometimes because it's something they can't use themselves.

flogen

flogen wrote:

While the Columbia three don't factor directly into this discussion I will make it clear that I don't believe the bird watching excuse for one second.

The accusation is that he was there with them.

That doesn't make him a threat to national security, it makes him an international drug dealer (or no better than one). If he is recieving drug money from Farc that doesn't make him a threat here, but it would in Columbia I guess. His job wouldn't make a difference either, it's how he is using his position to become a threat that matters. McDowell has made it clear that he sees Connolly as a threat to national security because of his placement at the CPI, this would suggest to me that he fears that he is using his position to manipulate reports, dig dirt on public officials and generally abuse the system for the good of SF. He may well be doing this and if he is I want action, because frankly outing Frank Connolly wouldn't stop the IRA from their goals, they'd just find another stooge.

That wouldnt matter as long as the stooge didnt have his hands on something like the CPI.

So what is Connolly doing in the CPI that makes him a threat? And what is being done about it besides a name and shame?

You are completely missing the point that someone with subversive links according to McDowell is not a fit character to direct the CPI.

That's arguable, but I can understand your reasoning behind it.
I also agree that a subversive shouldn't be involved period, but even if Connolly is in the pay of Farc, he is a Columbian subversive and not an Irish one, that crime has nothing to do with subversion in Ireland.

Uhm do you have any knowledge of this issue at all or are you now just replying for the crack?
The accusation is that he is a participant in giving IRA expertise to the Farc.
The subversive link is with the IRA.

I want to make this clear, I agree that Connolly should make his whereabouts known and I agree from my own perspective that anyone in the pocket of Farc should not be in charge of the CPI (I say that for numerous reasons, one being the fact that I see potential in a group like the CPI and would hate to see it die because of an outside controversy). However, and playing devils advocate to some degree, McDowell made his claims on the basis that Connolly was a threat to national security. I don't believe that being paid by Farc makes you a threat to national security in Ireland, it just makes you a generally dodgy person. The fact is that an Irishman being paid by Farc is 99.9% certain to be connected to the IRA and so would have more than this operation under his belt, so if you can show that they were paid by Farc you can assume they have other things going on in Ireland.

Ah so now you want me to prove that he was involved with Farc.
Nice attempt at diversion from connollys silence but I'm afraid that doesnt address the fishyness of Connollys evasion from the simple proof of the impossibility of him ever being in Columbia at all

However, Irish law doesn't work under assumptions and if McDowell came to the conclusion that Connolly was a threat to Irish security because he may have been in Columbia and he may have been in contact with Farc then I think he has done a great dis-service to his position as Minister of Justice and has damaged the Irish legal process.

How?
You keep avoiding the fact that after 5 years the DPP is not pressing charges so we are left with the simple evasion by Connolly of an accusation.

However if he has something else on Connolly which would prove a connection to actual subversion within Ireland and he is a threat to national security then 1) what is actually being done about it and 2) has he ruined any future case of the state against Connolly on matters of subversion (not connected to the passport)?

Again you are diverting away from the issue.He has been accused and has the simple ability to absolve himself and refuses to do so.
As regards your second point go back and re read my earlier post where I asked you should the government sit idly by whilst someone it suspects of subversive involvent takes the helm of a public inquiry body.

No I do. I agree with you that it is vital for transparency, but the same goes for McDowell. Why is Connolly a threat to national security and what is being done about it?

What is being done about it?? It's obvious whats being done about it-The matter has been brough to the attention of the public as a matter of public interest.McDowell has stated clearly that he(and the government) do not think he's fit to direct it because of subversive links.
Thats easily blown out of the water but isnt.

No, I never criticised McDowell for leaking to a newspaper, I criticised him for using Dail Privilege to make accusations he can't prove and using his influence to try and get it believed as fact. What he leaked may have been against the rules but it wasn't a lie, he leaked the evidence available.

You've said that you are ok with him leaking it secretly but not in public which is a bizarre contradiction.
Especially given that he has laid out his reasons clearly for this.
Whether those reasons stand or fall is easily within the realm of Connolly to control.

flogen

It is my strong belief that the reason no case has been brought against Adams and McGuinness is because it would do more harm than good in the peace process.
I find it hard to believe that the only evidence linking Connolly to the IRA is a trip to Columbia and if a dodgy CCTV picture and a dodgy passport picture are all McDowell had to go by he shouldn't have been so eager to accuse Connolly, but he was. That would lead me to believe that he knows more than he's saying or that there is more evidence available to him that he has not released to the public. My concern would be that as a result of his actions that evidence would now be hindered in a court (if there were ever a trial accusing Connolly of IRA membership/collussion) or that McDowell has chosen to verbally attack someone when a legal route was still possible.
I don't think McDowell has justified his statement that Connolly is a threat to national security, even with the silence that has followed. While it is extremely fishy you cannot accuse someone of a crime and base their guilt on their silence, you need to base it on solid evidence from the very beginning.

That wouldnt matter as long as the stooge didnt have his hands on something like the CPI.

So you think the IRA needs a group like the CPI to gather information? Please, if anything that would be worse, the actions of a public body would be noticed much quicker than those of an underground group like the IRA.

You are completely missing the point that someone with subversive links according to McDowell is not a fit character to direct the CPI.

No I'm not, I just want to see some solid subversive links to pin down Connolly. I refuse to accept his silence as proof of his guilt, no matter how dodgy I believe it to be. The fact is he was accused with no evidence, and only because he's kept quiet can McDowell try and look good, accusations should not be made if their based on the hope that the accused will keep his mouth shut.

Uhm do you have any knowledge of this issue at all or are you now just replying for the crack?

I wasn't saying that the CPI starting in feb was arguable, I was saying that your opinion on how a subversive would operate was arguable.

Ah so now you want me to prove that he was involved with Farc.
Nice attempt at diversion from connollys silence but I'm afraid that doesnt address the fishyness of Connollys evasion from the simple proof of the impossibility of him ever being in Columbia at all

I don't expect you to prove anything, I do expect McDowell to however.
What you're saying there is that it doesn't matter what flimsy evidence exists against him, his silence is the key factor? So if you accused me of a crime with nothing to back it up, and I refused to answer you because of the stupidity of the initial accusation, I'd be guilty and you'd be right? That's a pretty warped sense of justice IMO.

How?
You keep avoiding the fact that after 5 years the DPP is not pressing charges so we are left with the simple evasion by Connolly of an accusation.

Because he would be making a laughing stock of the justice system, obviously.
I'm not avoiding anything regarding the DPP, infact that's a major point of mine; after 5 years the DPP does not have the evidence to press charges against Connolly and yet the Justice Minister feels he has enough to publicly shame him and demand he answers for himself. That would be fine if there was something to go on, but all that has been shown is flimsy evidence and the whole accusation is relying on a lack of a reply from Connolly. In other words, McDowell made the accusation without anything to back it up and has only gotten away with it because Connolly has kept quiet. He should never have made the accusation in the first place.

You've said that you are ok with him leaking it secretly but not in public which is a bizarre contradiction.
Especially given that he has laid out his reasons clearly for this.
Whether those reasons stand or fall is easily within the realm of Connolly to control.

No, I never said I was ok with him leaking information, nor did I say I wasn't. I said it happens and if he had any sense as a minister (ie if he wanted to avoid any backlash) he should have leaked it in private. I have a problem with what he said in the Dail, not what he admitted to leaking.


I'm going to repeat my point again. Why must this case rest with Connolly? Isn't the purden of proof upon McDowell (accuser) to prove he's right rather than Connolly (accused) to prove he's wrong? When someone makes accusations they should be able to back it up, they shouldn't have to rely on the silence of others.

flogen

flogen wrote:

It is my strong belief that the reason no case has been brought against Adams and McGuinness is because it would do more harm than good in the peace process.
I find it hard to believe that the only evidence linking Connolly to the IRA is a trip to Columbia and if a dodgy CCTV picture and a dodgy passport picture are all McDowell had to go by he shouldn't have been so eager to accuse Connolly, but he was. That would lead me to believe that he knows more than he's saying or that there is more evidence available to him that he has not released to the public.

General agreement there except I would add that as I said earlier he has had the benefit of hearing the substance of Feeneys investigations.We have not, except that we know that Feeney based on them doesnt think Connolly is fit to direct the CPI.

My concern would be that as a result of his actions that evidence would now be hindered in a court (if there were ever a trial accusing Connolly of IRA membership/collussion) or that McDowell has chosen to verbally attack someone when a legal route was still possible.

Not according to Harney and the AG.

I don't think McDowell has justified his statement that Connolly is a threat to national security, even with the silence that has followed.

The problem with that statement is McDowell has told us why,he believes the photograph is Connolly.Feeney knows something that he has only shared with McDowell.
There only remains Connolly to easily clear this up.

While it is extremely fishy you cannot accuse someone of a crime and base their guilt on their silence, you need to base it on solid evidence from the very beginning.

Actually you can it's in the statute book since Omagh.
The option to stay silent can be taken legally against you.I know in real life it's more than certainly taken that way and I'd reckon were it not for this online discussion you'd accept that too.

So you think the IRA needs a group like the CPI to gather information? Please, if anything that would be worse, the actions of a public body would be noticed much quicker than those of an underground group like the IRA.

How so if it never came to light...
Your approach would ensure that methinks.
And anyway we are talking here of the considered views of an entire cabinet, an AG and Feeneys investigation team...
On the other side-total silence.
Fishy and the smell is enough to enduce gagging the longer it goes on.

No I'm not, I just want to see some solid subversive links to pin down Connolly. I refuse to accept his silence as proof of his guilt, no matter how dodgy I believe it to be.

Thats all well and good but convenient for Connolly.Theres loads of tribunals on at the moment where people are being tarred and feathered despite their denials.

The fact is he was accused with no evidence,

Uhm no evidence? Chuck Feeney sends a world renouned team of investigators to check up on everyone he donates money to and closes them all down does he.
Fact is at best Connolly has a case to answer.
A simple case and in the absence of answering it with the simple proof he couldnt have been in Columbia-it smells.

and only because he's kept quiet can McDowell try and look good, accusations should not be made if their based on the hope that the accused will keep his mouth shut.

How on earth would McDowell know Connoly would go to ground other than if he was absolutely certain that theres mud there.

I wasn't saying that the CPI starting in feb was arguable, I was saying that your opinion on how a subversive would operate was arguable.

With respect, you are saying that a subversive wouldnt misuse such resources?
Thats a lot of faith to be having in subversives...
Do you know what they do?
Yeah thats right they subvert, thats why they are called subversives.

I don't expect you to prove anything, I do expect McDowell to however.

Well he's proven one thing,Feeney has no confidence in Connolly based on his independent investigations.
Thats not good for the CPI and certainly demands the answers from Connolly.

What you're saying there is that it doesn't matter what flimsy evidence exists against him, his silence is the key factor? So if you accused me of a crime with nothing to back it up, and I refused to answer you because of the stupidity of the initial accusation, I'd be guilty and you'd be right? That's a pretty warped sense of justice IMO.

No what I'm saying is that a body that champions transparency should be directed by someone who does likewise.
Connollys actions are anything but transparent.

Because he would be making a laughing stock of the justice system, obviously.

You've not explained how.

I'm not avoiding anything regarding the DPP, infact that's a major point of mine; after 5 years the DPP does not have the evidence to press charges against Connolly and yet the Justice Minister feels he has enough to publicly shame him and demand he answers for himself. That would be fine if there was something to go on, but all that has been shown is flimsy evidence and the whole accusation is relying on a lack of a reply from Connolly.

And a complete lack of transparency regarding the simple bit where connolly can show how he couldnt have been in Columbia.

In other words, McDowell made the accusation without anything to back it up and has only gotten away with it because Connolly has kept quiet. He should never have made the accusation in the first place.

He made the accusation based on his interpretation of the evidence to hand and in tandem with Feeneys investigations which were enough on their own for Feeney to ask Connolly to step down.

No, I never said I was ok with him leaking information, nor did I say I wasn't. I said it happens and if he had any sense as a minister (ie if he wanted to avoid any backlash) he should have leaked it in private. I have a problem with what he said in the Dail, not what he admitted to leaking.

That would involve hypocrisy by the minister via a completete lack of transparency and even worse for him if it ever came out that he tried to hide his leak.
I'm disappointed but not surprised that you'd advocate such a lack of transparency.
I'm not surprised though that you advocate this and given that stated point of view, it's a waste of time argueing the toss with you as you are being consistently anti transparency-first with ok-ing Connolly being silent and untransparent and secondly in advocating that McDowell should be likewise.

It's not a standard that I would advocate for public office or for a body such as the CPI.

I'm going to repeat my point again. Why must this case rest with Connolly? Isn't the purden of proof upon McDowell (accuser) to prove he's right rather than Connolly (accused) to prove he's wrong? When someone makes accusations they should be able to back it up, they shouldn't have to rely on the silence of others.

One word again.
Simple transparency.
If you want to direct a body that champions it, then you must subject yourself to it or you lose credibility as does the organisation you head.

flogen

Earthman wrote:

Actually you can it's in the statute book since Omagh.
The option to stay silent can be taken legally against you.I know in real life it's more than certainly taken that way and I'd reckon were it not for this online discussion you'd accept that too.

That's all well and good when strong evidence has been provided by the accuser, evidence that would stand up in the eyes of Irish law. The DPP has decided that what they have on Connolly isn't strong enough to convict and so the statute book doesn't come into it, this is a question of ethics, should a minister be allowed to accuse someone without enough evidence and only use their silence as proof?

How so if it never came to light...
Your approach would ensure that methinks.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you clarify?

Thats all well and good but convenient for Connolly.Theres loads of tribunals on at the moment where people are being tarred and feathered despite their denials.

Again, that's a different matter as it's under the eyes of the Irish legal system, you can't compare a tribunal to this mud-slinging match.
It is convenient for Connolly, yes, but even in a situation where I was 99% certain that the accused was guilt of the suggested crimes I'd wish to afford them the same. Sadly we can't pick and choose what cases deserve evidence and what doesn't. No issue that hasn't court worthy evidence should ever be decided based on the silence of the accused.

Uhm no evidence? Chuck Feeney sends a world renouned team of investigators to check up on everyone he donates money to and closes them all down does he.
Fact is at best Connolly has a case to answer.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I could be), but didn't Feeney withdraw funding from the CPI after the public accusations by McDowell?
And if so, doesn't that mean that McDowell made his accusations before he was given Feeney's information?

How on earth would McDowell know Connoly would go to ground other than if he was absolutely certain that theres mud there.

I agree, but if he wants to make this accusation publicly he should make all of his information public too. I'm not suggesting for one minute that Connolly is innocent, I just think it was wrong of McDowell to make the accusations if all he is basing it on is the passport picture. He is likely to know more and he should make that public for his own vindication. If he's afraid at this point that any more evidence would be biasing a future trial then he's already too late, he has already called Connolly a threat to national security in public, so any trial which charges Connolly with this would be bias.

With respect, you are saying that a subversive wouldnt misuse such resources?
Thats a lot of faith to be having in subversives...
Do you know what they do?
Yeah thats right they subvert, thats why they are called subversives.

Please don't patronise me and read back over the conversation.
I say it is arguable that subversives in charge of a group like the CPI wouldn't turn the organisation straight to subversive acts. You believe they would wait, but there's nothing to say why they wouldn't. Would it not be possible that the CPI (or members of the CPI) are engaged in gathering information for subversive purposes since Feb 2005, but they've just kept that seperate from their public reports?

Well he's proven one thing,Feeney has no confidence in Connolly based on his independent investigations.
Thats not good for the CPI and certainly demands the answers from Connolly.

How did McDowell prove that? Feeney made that obvious when he withdrew funding, correct? While investigations may have been sparked following McDowells accusations he had nothing else to do with it, nor was it part of his own evidence.

No what I'm saying is that a body that champions transparency should be directed by someone who does likewise.
Connollys actions are anything but transparent.

I agree. My issue is with the initial accusation.

You've not explained how.

Well it seems pretty obvious to me. If a Minister for Justice makes public accusations against somebody based on flimsy evidence and has to rely on the silence of the accused, doesn't that do damage to the idea of innocent until prove guilty? McDowell is trying to prove the guilt of Connolly without providing any solid evidence.

He made the accusation based on his interpretation of the evidence to hand and in tandem with Feeneys investigations which were enough on their own for Feeney to ask Connolly to step down.

Again, I'm not sure if he did make the statement after Feeney's investigations or before, perhaps someone could clear that up.
If he didn't, his interpretation was not something that should have become public. If he did then I think the public have a right to know everything he knows (transparency, I guess you could call it), or else Feeney should pass his information onto the Gardai and DPP. Until the accusations are given the backing of solid proof I think McDowell's accusations were a mistake.

That would involve hypocrisy by the minister via a completete lack of transparency and even worse for him if it ever came out that he tried to hide his leak.
I'm disappointed but not surprised that you'd advocate such a lack of transparency.
I'm not surprised though that you advocate this and given that stated point of view, it's a waste of time argueing the toss with you as you are being consistently anti transparency-first with ok-ing Connolly being silent and untransparent and secondly in advocating that McDowell should be likewise.

I never advocated it, if you bothered to read my post you'd figure that.
I said it happens and that McDowell would avoid any controversy upon himself by becoming an anonymous source. I didn't say he should have done it, frankly the man is stupid enough to do what he has done so he should pay the price. I just think that if McDowell truely wanted to out Connolly and leave the possibility for a trial open he wouldn't have done what he did, he would have leaked information quietly.
I'm not being anti-transparency either. I think Connolly should speak and I don't advocate anonymous leaks from ministers. My issue is with the initial accusation and the effects that it is having. I do believe that Connolly shouldn't be in this situation but that doesn't mean I support his current stance.

One word again.
Simple transparency.
If you want to direct a body that champions it, then you must subject yourself to it or you lose credibility as does the organisation you head.

I've been agreeing with you on this point for some time now and yet you're still trying to use it against me.
My issue is with the original comments of McDowell, not his leak to a newspaper, not Connolly's silence.
We are both in agreement on Connolly and what he should be doing (speak out or step down), however I don't think that situation should have ever arisen if McDowell followed proper procedure, he should be transparent and tell us everything he knows, and then Connolly should do the same.

flogen

flogen wrote:

That's all well and good when strong evidence has been provided by the accuser, evidence that would stand up in the eyes of Irish law. The DPP has decided that what they have on Connolly isn't strong enough to convict and so the statute book doesn't come into it, this is a question of ethics, should a minister be allowed to accuse someone without enough evidence and only use their silence as proof?

I've done nothing here but show what McDowell has said and why and explain to you his reasoning and I've seen no credible rebuttle as to why he has reached that conclusion

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you clarify?

You'd let him away with his lack of transparency.

Again, that's a different matter as it's under the eyes of the Irish legal system, you can't compare a tribunal to this mud-slinging match.
It is convenient for Connolly, yes, but even in a situation where I was 99% certain that the accused was guilt of the suggested crimes I'd wish to afford them the same. Sadly we can't pick and choose what cases deserve evidence and what doesn't. No issue that hasn't court worthy evidence should ever be decided based on the silence of the accused.

Ah we're back to Connollys convenient shelter again.So you support that in his case despite how simple it should be for him to rebutt the accusation and you advocate no transparency.
See what I mean you would let him away with his lack of tranparency.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I could be), but didn't Feeney withdraw funding from the CPI after the public accusations by McDowell?
And if so, doesn't that mean that McDowell made his accusations before he was given Feeney's information?

No they were in constant contact during the investigation into this by Feeney separately and by McDowell.
I have no doubt that they shared information and that both were aware of what they were doing.

I agree, but if he wants to make this accusation publicly he should make all of his information public too. I'm not suggesting for one minute that Connolly is innocent, I just think it was wrong of McDowell to make the accusations if all he is basing it on is the passport picture. He is likely to know more and he should make that public for his own vindication. If he's afraid at this point that any more evidence would be biasing a future trial then he's already too late, he has already called Connolly a threat to national security in public, so any trial which charges Connolly with this would be bias.

Impossible to say without the charge sheet.
So if theres bias because of media coverage of any accused before a trial are you in favour of censorship of the media then?

Please don't patronise me and read back over the conversation.

Wheres that coming from?

I say it is arguable that subversives in charge of a group like the CPI wouldn't turn the organisation straight to subversive acts. You believe they would wait, but there's nothing to say why they wouldn't. Would it not be possible that the CPI (or members of the CPI) are engaged in gathering information for subversive purposes since Feb 2005, but they've just kept that seperate from their public reports?

Nope I'd say they'd be closed down somehow if they were.
But really this boils down to whether a subversive is a fit person to run the CPI.I think not and McDowells assertion that Connolly is one rises or falls depending on Connollys silence.
To suggest otherwise is frankly incredible.

How did McDowell prove that? Feeney made that obvious when he withdrew funding, correct? While investigations may have been sparked following McDowells accusations he had nothing else to do with it, nor was it part of his own evidence.

Simple McDowell brought the matter to Feeneys attention.Feeney did his own homework and Voilá

Well it seems pretty obvious to me. If a Minister for Justice makes public accusations against somebody based on flimsy evidence and has to rely on the silence of the accused, doesn't that do damage to the idea of innocent until prove guilty? McDowell is trying to prove the guilt of Connolly without providing any solid evidence.

It would in most circumstances but not when you have someone claiming to be a champion of transparency and a campaigner against corruption being completely untransparent conveniently when the light is being shone on him not only by McDowell but by the CPI's generous benefactor.

Again, I'm not sure if he did make the statement after Feeney's investigations or before, perhaps someone could clear that up.
If he didn't, his interpretation was not something that should have become public. If he did then I think the public have a right to know everything he knows (transparency, I guess you could call it), or else Feeney should pass his information onto the Gardai and DPP. Until the accusations are given the backing of solid proof I think McDowell's accusations were a mistake.

I've dealt with that already.It's clear they were in constant contact over this matter and that Feeney saw fit to do his own investigations.
McDowell went public on this when Feeney has the results of his own investigations.
So you're advocating transparency now??
It's not something you can take up and drop as you please you know.
You either have it all the time or not at all...

I never advocated it, if you bothered to read my post you'd figure that.

This is getting ridiculous.
Whats the point in discussing this with you when you dont advocate transparency or have an ala carte approach to it.
Thats exactly what Connolly seems to do.
It's hardly surprising that we are here argueing over this given that approach.

I said it happens and that McDowell would avoid any controversy upon himself by becoming an anonymous source.

A definite sacking offence tbh.
Brendan Howlin was recently ordered by the high court to reveal sources and that was for stuff he said under Dáil privilege!
So not alone do you have an ala carte attitude to transparency, you want to get the minister sacked aswell.

I didn't say he should have done it, frankly the man is stupid enough to do what he has done so he should pay the price. I just think that if McDowell truely wanted to out Connolly and leave the possibility for a trial open he wouldn't have done what he did, he would have leaked information quietly.

Whats the difference between leaking the same information privately anyway and publically? The same articles are wrote, the public and potential jurors get exposed to the same press.The minister would still air his view as he's entitled to do.

I'm not being anti-transparency either.

yes you are twice in this thread alone: first when you would let Connolly away with his lack of tranparency by advocating he should stay in his job and secondly by advocating that the minister should have leaked this privately and then you call for transparency in another paragraph.... as I said you seem to have an ala carte approach to transparency and based on that its impossible to go anywhere on this issue with you.

I think Connolly should speak and I don't advocate anonymous leaks from ministers.

Yes you do, and yes you did. your exact words were "I said it happens and if he had any sense as a minister (ie if he wanted to avoid any backlash) he should have leaked it in private. I have a problem with what he said in the Dail, not what he admitted to leaking." Now theres a clear advocation of a lack of tranparency by you.You want the minister not to be transparent.In fact to be pedantic, you are saying you'd prefer if he wasnt transparent and leaked something privately.

My issue is with the initial accusation and the effects that it is having. I do believe that Connolly shouldn't be in this situation but that doesn't mean I support his current stance.

So you do think Connolly should be transparent ? you are confusing me now as earlier you didn't.

I've been agreeing with you on this point for some time now and yet you're still trying to use it against me.
My issue is with the original comments of McDowell, not his leak to a newspaper, not Connolly's silence.

my emphasis in bold there to point out , you've lost your belief in transparency again...

We are both in agreement on Connolly and what he should be doing (speak out or step down), however I don't think that situation should have ever arisen if McDowell followed proper procedure, he should be transparent and tell us everything he knows, and then Connolly should do the same.

Yes we are in agreement of sorts here and always were with the exception that McDowell will be vindicated by Connollys fishy silence.
It will always look like that to me because without reasonable explanation,I'll never understand why Connolly refuses to blow McDowell out of the water other than to think that the reason must be he cant prove an impossibility ie its impossible to prove you werent in Columbia if in actual fact you were in Columbia.

A Dub in Glasgo

There are a number of reasons why Connolly is not giving proof to his whereabouts over and above his statement which denied he was not in Colombia and he did not apply for a fake passport.

1. He could not be arsed to expand his statement as has no requirement to. If he was charged with an offence he may do so.

2. He cannot actually prove where he was at the time

3. He does not want to prove where he was as it may show that he was in colombia and did make a fake passport application.

For somebody who has already denied that he was in Colombia and he made a fake passport application, why are some people assuming it is 3 above?

I have not seen the Irish/Sunday Independent edition in question but did they actually publish the information that McDowell fed them or did they just write around it? If they did publish the information, McDowell must have agreed to it and I agree he was not transparent. If they did not, how can this show that McDowell has been transparent in all this considering the apparantly accepted democratic principle of innocent until proven guilty and the fact that the Minister is the one making the accusations?


Edit: By the way, I agree with the OP regarding McDowell using the Goebbels technique... that is, after all, what this thread is about

flogen

I've done nothing here but show what McDowell has said and why and explain to you his reasoning and I've seen no credible rebuttle as to why he has reached that conclusion

Why he reached the conclusion that Connolly is a threat? All you've said, and all you can say is that he must have reached the conclusion based on information that isn't in the public domain. My issue is that McDowell has made a claim without bringing the relative evidence forward, the fact that he knows it isn't good enough for me, I want it to be made public, then I'll agree/disagree on that basis.

You'd let him away with his lack of transparency.

Who, Connolly? No, you're misreading me now. I would not let him away with his lack of transparency however I feel the initial accusation lacks transparency and shouldn't have been made without it. I agree that Connolly should be transparent and never said otherwise, I mearly said he can stay quiet if he likes, there is nothing stopping him (except the defamation of his character and the CPI, but that's a personal decision on his part).

Ah we're back to Connollys convenient shelter again.So you support that in his case despite how simple it should be for him to rebutt the accusation and you advocate no transparency.
See what I mean you would let him away with his lack of tranparency.

No, see what I mean about you misreading me? Connolly should be transparent, full stop. However the Minister should have done the same from day 1 and shared all he knows with the public had he decided to make such a serious claim.

No they were in constant contact during the investigation into this by Feeney separately and by McDowell.
I have no doubt that they shared information and that both were aware of what they were doing.

And why can't this information be made public? I hate to use this example because this is not a court case, but what trial has ever lasted where evidence has been held back? I mean, are we supposed to take the word of McDowell and Feeney? I'm not suggesting they're liars, but I have no reason to believe them either. I want to see the facts.

So if theres bias because of media coverage of any accused before a trial are you in favour of censorship of the media then?

You seem to be taking whatever meaning you like from what I'm saying. I never said there was media bias, I said the bias would come from the high profile people who have made the claim against him (ie The Minister).

Wheres that coming from?

Your kind explanation of what a subversive is; I found it quite patronising.

Nope I'd say they'd be closed down somehow if they were.
But really this boils down to whether a subversive is a fit person to run the CPI.I think not and McDowells assertion that Connolly is one rises or falls depending on Connollys silence.
To suggest otherwise is frankly incredible.

So you don't think the CPI or any of its members were involved in subversive acts? Does McDowell? I'd imagine he does, have any searches been conducted to find out if the CPI or its members are acting in a subversive manner? Just so we can all know for sure.

Simple McDowell brought the matter to Feeneys attention.Feeney did his own homework and Voilá

Ok, and McDowell had the results of Feeney's investigation prior to his statement in the Dail, right? I'm almost certain the funding cut happened a while after the statement.

It would in most circumstances but not when you have someone claiming to be a champion of transparency and a campaigner against corruption being completely untransparent conveniently when the light is being shone on him not only by McDowell but by the CPI's generous benefactor.

No. While I agree with you that it is important for a group championing transparency to be transparent I still feel that the burden of proof rests on the accuser. Under no circumstances should it be any different.

So you're advocating transparency now??
It's not something you can take up and drop as you please you know.
You either have it all the time or not at all...

I was never opposed to transparency, you just believed I was for some reason.

This is getting ridiculous.
Whats the point in discussing this with you when you dont advocate transparency or have an ala carte approach to it.
Thats exactly what Connolly seems to do.
It's hardly surprising that we are here argueing over this given that approach.

Please re-read what I wasn't advocating. I was not advocating the anonymous leaking of information by government minister. It's something that happens.

A definite sacking offence tbh.

If he was caught, yes.

Brendan Howlin was recently ordered by the high court to reveal sources and that was for stuff he said under Dáil privilege!
So not alone do you have an ala carte attitude to transparency, you want to get the minister sacked aswell.
Whats the difference between leaking the same information privately anyway and publically? The same articles are wrote, the public and potential jurors get exposed to the same press.The minister would still air his view as he's entitled to do.

You seem to think my suggestion of him being an anonymous source means I think he should do it. I have said that if he wanted to avoid controversy and have less of an effect on a trial he would have been better off to go quietly. I didn't say it was the right thing to do, though.
How it effects the trial, well while the same articles are written etc. the potential jurors do not see their Minister for Justice stand up and unequivocally state that this man is guilty of a crime he has not been tried for. If a newspaper says "minister for justice says Connolly is guilty" and another says "This paper has found information which proves Connolly is guilty", which would you believe first? Actually, which do you think would be swallowed by the public quicker? The Minister for Justice is a paid representative of the people of this country and is paid to have their interests at heart; in the minds of the people it's harder to discount his statement than it is to discount the statement of a newspaper or journalist.

yes you are twice in this thread alone: first when you would let Connolly away with his lack of tranparency by advocating he should stay in his job and secondly by advocating that the minister should have leaked this privately and then you call for transparency in another paragraph.... as I said you seem to have an ala carte approach to transparency and based on that its impossible to go anywhere on this issue with you.

I never advocated a minister leaking a document privately, I said that if he wanted to avoid the backlash he should have had the sense to do it, and that it's a standard fact of ministerial work. I didn't say he would be right or that I'd look kindly upon him when it came to light that he was the source. I just think that he has done more damage than good if his wishes were to out Connolly and make him answerable to the public.
I also, again, never said I would let Connolly away with being untransparent, I said the ministers comments should never have happened without the evidence to back them up being made public and so technically Connolly should not be in this position. Everyone knows you shouldn't go for someone if you don't have the evidence to back it up. McDowells oversight has meant that Connolly has wriggle room to act high and mighty, saying he's not going to answer to the media like they're the Gardai.

Yes you do, and yes you did. your exact words were "I said it happens and if he had any sense as a minister (ie if he wanted to avoid any backlash) he should have leaked it in private. I have a problem with what he said in the Dail, not what he admitted to leaking." Now theres a clear advocation of a lack of tranparency by you.You want the minister not to be transparent.In fact to be pedantic, you are saying you'd prefer if he wasnt transparent and leaked something privately.

No, I didn't, I said if he had sense as a minister to avoid controversy and to protect any future case it would have been in his best interests to remain anonymous.
I suppose in a way I am saying I would have prefered that but only because it would leave a greater chance of Connolly being convicted should evidence come along that the DPP can use. For the greater good, in other words.

So you do think Connolly should be transparent ? you are confusing me now as earlier you didn't.

Where did I say I didn't want him to be transparent?

Yes we are in agreement of sorts here and always were with the exception that McDowell will be vindicated by Connollys fishy silence.

Agreed. I believe he will only be vindicated if evidence comes out to back up his claim, while you're happy to accept Connollys silence as an admission of guilt. Fair enough.

It will always look like that to me because without reasonable explanation,I'll never understand why Connolly refuses to blow McDowell out of the water

I don't understand either. Perhaps he does have a moral issue with answering to the media rather than the proper channels, but if that's it then he's an idiot.
It's looking like he doesn't have a reply, unless he has some suckerpunch coming soon, that's not what's the problem though.
My issue is that McDowell should make the evidence he knows public, as I'm sure, as are you, that there's more. If he is not willing to do that then he should not have made the issue public at all, that includes the leaks (but then again his leak of the passport would not have led to an accusation from a journalist that he was a threat to the state, just that he was in Columbia contacting Farc.)

flogen

Reply part (1)

flogen wrote:

Why he reached the conclusion that Connolly is a threat? All you've said, and all you can say is that he must have reached the conclusion based on information that isn't in the public domain. My issue is that McDowell has made a claim without bringing the relative evidence forward, the fact that he knows it isn't good enough for me, I want it to be made public, then I'll agree/disagree on that basis.

Thats fine I've no problem with that at all.My stance is different in that I'll take on board the public interest issue untill I see Connolly do the easy thing and call Connollys silence fishy.
Our disagreement appears not to be about what Connolly should do but in our interpretation of what McDowell has done.

Who, Connolly? No, you're misreading me now. I would not let him away with his lack of transparency however I feel the initial accusation lacks transparency and shouldn't have been made without it.

I dont see how,McDowell is up there making trouble for himself by being very transparent in his view.He hasnt been asked as far as I'm aware if he has anything else and you and I are only assuming that he has.I'm certainly thinking that Feeney must have something given his actions.

I agree that Connolly should be transparent and never said otherwise,

Thank you for the clarification.

I mearly said he can stay quiet if he likes, there is nothing stopping him (except the defamation of his character and the CPI, but that's a personal decision on his part).

A wrong one and a wreckless one to boot for someone who should be transparent.

No, see what I mean about you misreading me? Connolly should be transparent, full stop. However the Minister should have done the same from day 1 and shared all he knows with the public had he decided to make such a serious claim.

We dont know that though do we? We do know that Feeney knows something.He doesnt have to release that at all.He's under no obligation but his decision is noticeable and remarkable.After all the CPI saw him as a fit person to take funds from which lends credence to his judgement

And why can't this information be made public? I hate to use this example because this is not a court case, but what trial has ever lasted where evidence has been held back? I mean, are we supposed to take the word of McDowell and Feeney? I'm not suggesting they're liars, but I have no reason to believe them either. I want to see the facts.

Fine so do I but I'm not going to tollerate a lack of transparency from anyone especially a hypocritical lack of it.Plus I feel it natural to beg the question as to why he's not doing it even though he must know he's damaging the CPI's credibility via his own lack of transparency in the process.

You seem to be taking whatever meaning you like from what I'm saying. I never said there was media bias, I said the bias would come from the high profile people who have made the claim against him (ie The Minister).

I'd find it difficult to agree with you there too as it would basically halt ministers or TD's speaking out on any public interest issue and I dont think thats right.

Your kind explanation of what a subversive is; I found it quite patronising.

Cut and thrust of debate my good man
A subversive subverts, thats undeniable.

So you don't think the CPI or any of its members were involved in subversive acts? Does McDowell? I'd imagine he does, have any searches been conducted to find out if the CPI or its members are acting in a subversive manner? Just so we can all know for sure.

Dont know but I sure as hell wouldn't want a person who cant be transparent about an issue as serious as subversion running it thats for sure.
Neither would you.
Where we disagree seems to be on the isuue of burden of proof.
Thats important I'll grant you that but equally so istransparency when its so simple to be transparent.
It can do no harm surely but the lack of it in this case does.

Ok, and McDowell had the results of Feeney's investigation prior to his statement in the Dail, right? I'm almost certain the funding cut happened a while after the statement.

I know it did but I also know both were in contact with each other and aware of what they were doing

No. While I agree with you that it is important for a group championing transparency to be transparent I still feel that the burden of proof rests on the accuser. Under no circumstances should it be any different.

You've already agreed that Connolly isnt being transparent here.
I cant fathom why not other than the fishy, we sort of agree on that aswell but not on how it has come to that.
As for McDowell several times I've expressed the view that if caught out with this as Connolly can so easily do then I've no sympathy for him whatsoever and I'm on your side 100% on that one.
Where we seem to part is on the level of importance this has to the public interest and whether it should transend the gathering of every last bit of evidence before coming to light or whether it should be nipped in the bud ie Connolly be forced to come up with the beef or not.
Obviously McDowell feels strongly that he does and he's the one who has taken the tight rope here and connolly is holding the other end of it for him by his lack of transparency.


I'll take that analogy further by saying in order for you and me to bridge our differing approach to this,Connolly would have to take the ground from under McDowell by presenting the easy evidence of where he was in April and May 2001.Not doing that is just too convenient and simply untransparent.

I was never opposed to transparency, you just believed I was for some reason.



Please re-read what I wasn't advocating. I was not advocating the anonymous leaking of information by government minister. It's something that happens.

Bad wording perhaps? You've already clarified your position,it certainly looked all over the place to me.
And by the way you are not the only one to fall fowl of misinterpretations on this board due to a wording,It's happened to me many times and everyone probably in fact on this board

You seem to think my suggestion of him being an anonymous source means I think he should do it. I have said that if he wanted to avoid controversy and have less of an effect on a trial he would have been better off to go quietly. I didn't say it was the right thing to do, though.
How it effects the trial, well while the same articles are written etc. the potential jurors do not see their Minister for Justice stand up and unequivocally state that this man is guilty of a crime he has not been tried for.

Flogen,I'd imagine McDowell wouldnt hide his views at all, he's not like that.

If a newspaper says "minister for justice says Connolly is guilty" and another says "This paper has found information which proves Connolly is guilty", which would you believe first? Actually, which do you think would be swallowed by the public quicker?

It depends.This is a specefic case and virtually all of the print media have had a dig at McDowell for leaking to just one paper-so in this case it could have worked either way.

The Minister for Justice is a paid representative of the people of this country and is paid to have their interests at heart; in the minds of the people it's harder to discount his statement than it is to discount the statement of a newspaper or journalist.

It would also be hard to discount Connollys proof that he wasnt in columbia, that he couldnt have been.
It cuts both ways there too.

I never advocated a minister leaking a document privately, I said that if he wanted to avoid the backlash he should have had the sense to do it, and that it's a standard fact of ministerial work. I didn't say he would be right or that I'd look kindly upon him when it came to light that he was the source. I just think that he has done more damage than good if his wishes were to out Connolly and make him answerable to the public.

some of what I said about wording earlier applies to that.
As regards doing more damage than good, if you are talking again as you did earlier about the legal and political system here,I've not seen anything to convince me of that, so thats another point that we differ on unless Connolly comes up with the goods.

I also, again, never said I would let Connolly away with being untransparent, I said the ministers comments should never have happened without the evidence to back them up being made public and so technically Connolly should not be in this position. Everyone knows you shouldn't go for someone if you don't have the evidence to back it up.

The difficulty I have with that is that he has told us how he has formed his view albeit not enough for you in that you want 100%.Now he says he's acting in the public interest and has argued why.
Ergo his whole stance stands or falls with connollys reponse.I've yet to see a rebuttal of this public interest issue thats so unbelievably easy to blow up in McDowells face with Connollys beef[evidence] that he couldnt have been in Columbia.

McDowells oversight has meant that Connolly has wriggle room to act high and mighty, saying he's not going to answer to the media like they're the Gardai.

He cant have that wriggle room if he wants to head up a body championing transparency as he would have one rule for himself and a different one for the people he investigates.

flogen

Reply part (2)

flogen wrote:

No, I didn't, I said if he had sense as a minister to avoid controversy and to protect any future case it would have been in his best interests to remain anonymous.
I suppose in a way I am saying I would have prefered that but only because it would leave a greater chance of Connolly being convicted should evidence come along that the DPP can use. For the greater good, in other words.

I can see that point of view now more clearly than earlier thank you.

Where did I say I didn't want him to be transparent?

I took that as a given from your stance on him having the right to run the CPI and stay silent on McDowells claims.
You have now clarified this.

Agreed. I believe he will only be vindicated if evidence comes out to back up his claim, while you're happy to accept Connollys silence as an admission of guilt. Fair enough.

Ditto.

I don't understand either. Perhaps he does have a moral issue with answering to the media rather than the proper channels, but if that's it then he's an idiot.
It's looking like he doesn't have a reply, unless he has some suckerpunch coming soon, that's not what's the problem though.
My issue is that McDowell should make the evidence he knows public, as I'm sure, as are you, that there's more. If he is not willing to do that then he should not have made the issue public at all, that includes the leaks (but then again his leak of the passport would not have led to an accusation from a journalist that he was a threat to the state, just that he was in Columbia contacting Farc.)

I dont have a great issue with what you are saying there other than our perspectives are slightly different(though at certain points they appear poles apart)
To some extent I think McDowell has got himself into a classic catch 22 situation.To use classic simpsons parlance he must have thought he was damned if he did this and damned if he didnt.
I dont blame some people for admiring his tenacity on this one.
One doesnt always have to agree with ones opponents to admire some of their characteristics.


In conclusion are we sort of settled now as to where we both stand on this or is there anything else that should be cleared up as it's well pub time Guinness anyone ?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Edit: By the way, I agree with the OP regarding McDowell using the Goebbels technique... that is, after all, what this thread is about

You'll agree then that in order to establish that, the discussion on whether or not it is in the public interest to do what McDowell did is pertinent to the comparison.

flogen

pt. 1

Earthman wrote:

Thats fine I've no problem with that at all.My stance is different in that I'll take on board the public interest issue untill I see Connolly do the easy thing and call Connollys silence fishy.
Our disagreement appears not to be about what Connolly should do but in our interpretation of what McDowell has done.

I think that's a fair assesment.

I dont see how,McDowell is up there making trouble for himself by being very transparent in his view.

Well, he's been facing a lot of criticism, the fact that he can or cannot get a good rebuttal to that is irrelevent, it's all hassle as far as I am (and I'm sure he is) concerned.

He hasnt been asked as far as I'm aware if he has anything else and you and I are only assuming that he has.I'm certainly thinking that Feeney must have something given his actions.

That may well be true and that is the failing of a number of people, from politicians to journalists to the general public.
I would be of the opinion that if he is basing his claim on what he has told us then he has been too pre-emptive with it, but if he is basing his claim on other facts that he knows then he should make them as public as the accusation itself.

A wrong one and a wreckless one to boot for someone who should be transparent.

I agree.

We dont know that though do we? We do know that Feeney knows something.He doesnt have to release that at all.He's under no obligation but his decision is noticeable and remarkable.After all the CPI saw him as a fit person to take funds from which lends credence to his judgement

Well, no we don't know it but it would be a fair leap of faith to make that McDowell knows more than he's said, especially if he's been in touch with Feeney.
Naturally Feeney has no obligation to release his information but it does raise my main concern again. If McDowell didn't have the support of Feeney to release this information then it may as well not exist. Anything that this accusation is based on should have been put on the table.

Fine so do I but I'm not going to tollerate a lack of transparency from anyone especially a hypocritical lack of it.Plus I feel it natural to beg the question as to why he's not doing it even though he must know he's damaging the CPI's credibility via his own lack of transparency in the process.

That's a fair question and is one I'd like to know the answer to too.
One thing about Connolly's hypocracy though, don't you see my point that his hypocrasy would never have been an arguable issue had the Minister either a) released everything he knows or b) not said anything because he was unwilling to prove it? Had McDowell come out with some more concrete evidence then there could be no where for Connolly to hide, especially not with his attempt at taking the higher ground (this is pretty much what I mean by wiggle room too. While Connolly's excuse carrys as much water as a siv it's something that he can still get away with using within the CPI etc.).

I'd find it difficult to agree with you there too as it would basically halt ministers or TD's speaking out on any public interest issue and I dont think thats right.

I have no issue with them speaking out on any public interest issue, but making accusations in the name of public interest and not backing them up before the public is different IMO. Again though, it all depends on what you're willing to accept when you work out the level of public interest against evidence needed. I don't think we quite differ on that, but I would prefer the evidence to be public also while you are happy to accept it is there given the actions of Feeney and the support of the cabinet.

Cut and thrust of debate my good man
A subversive subverts, thats undeniable.

I'll keep that in mind, but only if you keep in mind the fact that I know what a subversive is, and always have

Dont know but I sure as hell wouldn't want a person who cant be transparent about an issue as serious as subversion running it thats for sure.
Neither would you.
Where we disagree seems to be on the isuue of burden of proof.
Thats important I'll grant you that but equally so istransparency when its so simple to be transparent.
It can do no harm surely but the lack of it in this case does.

But would you not like to know? Shouldn't McDowell be transparent too?

I know it did but I also know both were in contact with each other and aware of what they were doing

I think Feeney should do the right thing and tell us what he knows, I also think McDowell shouldn't have gone ahead with his comments without that backing.

You've already agreed that Connolly isnt being transparent here.
I cant fathom why not other than the fishy, we sort of agree on that aswell but not on how it has come to that.
As for McDowell several times I've expressed the view that if caught out with this as Connolly can so easily do then I've no sympathy for him whatsoever and I'm on your side 100% on that one.
Where we seem to part is on the level of importance this has to the public interest and whether it should transend the gathering of every last bit of evidence before coming to light or whether it should be nipped in the bud ie Connolly be forced to come up with the beef or not.
Obviously McDowell feels strongly that he does and he's the one who has taken the tight rope here and connolly is holding the other end of it for him by his lack of transparency.

I would venture a guess (and it is a guess, because I can do no more) that while enough evidence may not exist for trial, enough exists to raise sufficient questions about Connollys background. I don't think the passport issue does that on its own. I am willing to believe that McDowell, Feeney, the cabinet and the AG are not so stupid as to jump this most important gun, however I feel that McDowell has done a great deal of harm by not being 100% clear with what he knows.

I'll take that analogy further by saying in order for you and me to bridge our differing approach to this,Connolly would have to take the ground from under McDowell by presenting the easy evidence of where he was in April and May 2001.Not doing that is just too convenient and simply untransparent.

That or McDowell publish some solid evidence to back his fears that Connolly is a threat to national security.

Bad wording perhaps? You've already clarified your position,it certainly looked all over the place to me.
And by the way you are not the only one to fall fowl of misinterpretations on this board due to a wording,It's happened to me many times and everyone probably in fact on this board

Indeed I am not, and I'm sure it will happen again! Face to face discussions are much easier I think, it's harder to be misunderstood and easier to correct your mistakes too.

Flogen,I'd imagine McDowell wouldnt hide his views at all, he's not like that.

I wouldn't suggest he hides them, but rather he is more considered in his comments or else more convincing.

It depends.This is a specefic case and virtually all of the print media have had a dig at McDowell for leaking to just one paper-so in this case it could have worked either way. It would also be hard to discount Connollys proof that he wasnt in columbia, that he couldnt have been.
It cuts both ways there too.

Well that is true but I would say that, if a trial was to exist, it would be McDowell who should bare the brunt for any bias even if Connolly came out with his alibi. The reason being McDowell was the first to strike and was the accuser.

some of what I said about wording earlier applies to that.

Well I've made the point already, I wouldn't advocate anon. leaking, I just accept that it happens. For the sake of McDowell avoiding trouble and potential bias he would have been wiser to leak privately. I assume he would have if he wasn't so sure of his position, which goes back to what he knows that we don't.

As regards doing more damage than good, if you are talking again as you did earlier about the legal and political system here,I've not seen anything to convince me of that, so thats another point that we differ on unless Connolly comes up with the goods.

So you don't think that a Minister stating something unproven as fact has more of an impression on the public than a Journalist doing so?
I suppose we will have to disagree, after all there's no possible way to gauge this at all.

The difficulty I have with that is that he has told us how he has formed his view albeit not enough for you in that you want 100%.Now he says he's acting in the public interest and has argued why.
Ergo his whole stance stands or falls with connollys reponse.I've yet to see a rebuttal of this public interest issue thats so unbelievably easy to blow up in McDowells face with Connollys beef[evidence] that he couldnt have been in Columbia.

I don't think, based on the evidence we currently know, that Connolly is truely a threat to national security. I think that, taking the evidence as proof that he was in Columbia with Farc, he is a scumbag involved in an international drug ring and is a threat to Columbian national security but that's about it. I just want evidence of the accusation.

flogen

pt. 2

He cant have that wriggle room if he wants to head up a body championing transparency as he would have one rule for himself and a different one for the people he investigates.

Well, in the long run, no he can't. But if McDowell or Feeney released the evidence they have it would probably lead to the CPI losing faith in him, because at present they have no reason not to (based on evidence rather than silence).
As I said, in the long run the CPI will realise that they cannot recover from this damage with Connolly at the helm unless he comes along with undeniable evidence that he was not in Columbia and did not travel on the false passport. As it stands they seem willing to accept his word and maybe they also know something that we don't.
Do bear in mind that the CPI, while directed, is not controlled by Connolly. At any point the other members could vote no confidence in him, and I'm surprised they haven't given the fact that they've lost a lot of money. Maybe they know something we don't, maybe they trust Connolly, maybe they're just being stubborn and don't want to lose face, I don't know.

I dont have a great issue with what you are saying there other than our perspectives are slightly different(though at certain points they appear poles apart)
To some extent I think McDowell has got himself into a classic catch 22 situation.To use classic simpsons parlance he must have thought he was damned if he did this and damned if he didnt.

Almost certainly, as is the way of Irish politics. I do believe that this issue, however does not solely rest on Connolly, either he or McDowell could end the argument by being more transparent. McDowell could destroy Connolly with what he claims to know just as Connolly could destroy McDowell with what he claims to know. Of course, none of us here know what other evidence there is, if any. I just hope there's more otherwise McDowell has done no more than take a lucky shot and Connollys silence doesn't justify it one bit.
I guess that's the basic disagreement here, you believe the ball is firmly in Connollys court and he and only he can end it while I believe that either could and should finish this once and for all.

I dont blame some people for admiring his tenacity on this one.
One doesnt always have to agree with ones opponents to admire some of their characteristics.


In conclusion are we sort of settled now as to where we both stand on this or is there anything else that should be cleared up as it's well pub time Guinness anyone ?

Agreed, assuming there is more evidence than we know I can understand why he did what he did, I just think he did it all wrong and this should be pointed out to him.

Sadly I seem to have missed last orders, but I'd love a Guinness right now... damn it!

flogen

flogen wrote:

Well, he's been facing a lot of criticism, the fact that he can or cannot get a good rebuttal to that is irrelevent, it's all hassle as far as I am (and I'm sure he is) concerned

He's probably tell you there is no irrelevancy due to the public interest issue.

Well, no we don't know it but it would be a fair leap of faith to make that McDowell knows more than he's said, especially if he's been in touch with Feeney.
Naturally Feeney has no obligation to release his information but it does raise my main concern again. If McDowell didn't have the support of Feeney to release this information then it may as well not exist. Anything that this accusation is based on should have been put on the table.

As regards feeneys information, well its no different to him using the information to sack an employee.He felt he had grounds and I dont see anything in Feeneys character that would make him do that vindictively.
I wouldnt for insance be so patient with this situation if Feeney didnt ask for Connollys resignation.

That's a fair question and is one I'd like to know the answer to too.
One thing about Connolly's hypocracy though, don't you see my point that his hypocrasy would never have been an arguable issue had the Minister either a) released everything he knows or b) not said anything because he was unwilling to prove it? Had McDowell come out with some more concrete evidence then there could be no where for Connolly to hide, especially not with his attempt at taking the higher ground (this is pretty much what I mean by wiggle room too. While Connolly's excuse carrys as much water as a siv it's something that he can still get away with using within the CPI etc.).

Thats where the call has to be made on the public interest issue.All of this is available for inspection at some point by a future non FF government.There will be a paper trail.

I have no issue with them speaking out on any public interest issue, but making accusations in the name of public interest and not backing them up before the public is different IMO. Again though, it all depends on what you're willing to accept when you work out the level of public interest against evidence needed. I don't think we quite differ on that, but I would prefer the evidence to be public also while you are happy to accept it is there given the actions of Feeney and the support of the cabinet.

I'd have no difficulty with your position were it not for Connollys lack of transparency here.It would seem strange to me that he wouldnt use his knowledge to blow McDowell out of the water on this unless of course he cant.
As I said, judging from your position , there can be no meeting of minds here.

I'll keep that in mind, but only if you keep in mind the fact that I know what a subversive is, and always have

Well obviously you do, but It is a valid debating tool when talking about subversion to explain for the record what a subversive does.

But would you not like to know? Shouldn't McDowell be transparent too?

I dont have any basis for thinking McDowell isnt transparent here and neither do you.No body has asked Feeney specefically why he withdrew funding.McDowell hasnt indicated that his view is formed from anything other than what he gave Sam Smyth.
He may have information from Feeneys investigators that Connolly was in Columbia, we dont know -we can only conject on that one.
As regards Connolly-I can be categorical that he isnt being transparent.

I think Feeney should do the right thing and tell us what he knows, I also think McDowell shouldn't have gone ahead with his comments without that backing.

He's not even a citizen of this country afaik and his investigations were for his own busness,We have no right to demand what he knows, we can only request it.

I would venture a guess (and it is a guess, because I can do no more) that while enough evidence may not exist for trial, enough exists to raise sufficient questions about Connollys background. I don't think the passport issue does that on its own. I am willing to believe that McDowell, Feeney, the cabinet and the AG are not so stupid as to jump this most important gun,

That would be my thinking.

however I feel that McDowell has done a great deal of harm by not being 100% clear with what he knows.

I disagree for the simple reason that I value the public interest concern and that rises or falls with Connolly.

That or McDowell publish some solid evidence to back his fears that Connolly is a threat to national security.

That goes back to what is more important, the public issue of a subversive having such powerfull reigns would be uppermost to me.
Again that rises or falls with Connolly.

Well that is true but I would say that, if a trial was to exist, it would be McDowell who should bare the brunt for any bias even if Connolly came out with his alibi. The reason being McDowell was the first to strike and was the accuser.

I think we are fairly agreed that this could blow up in McDowells face.I think we are probably similar on the fishyness of Connollys stance of silence.
Our dividing line appears to be on the rating we put on the public interest and whether it was important enough based on what was there to raise it publically.
I think it was given that it seems clear to me that McDowell must have known the risks of doing so and must have been of the considered opinion that Connolly wouldnt be transparent.

So you don't think that a Minister stating something unproven as fact has more of an impression on the public than a Journalist doing so?

ministers have been sacked after stating things that were economical with the truth so , I dont think that.I think the public are more discerning with how they make up their minds to be honest and they certainly dont have blind faith in ministers.

I don't think, based on the evidence we currently know, that Connolly is truely a threat to national security. I think that, taking the evidence as proof that he was in Columbia with Farc, he is a scumbag involved in an international drug ring and is a threat to Columbian national security but that's about it. I just want evidence of the accusation.

Well you see, he wasnt out in Columbia according to McDowell on his own bat.
He was out there according to mcdowell trading military know how for money.
It's what that money would be used for back in Ireland that is the basis for McDowells concern.
It boils down to whether he was there then.
It also boils down to whether one believes that the Farc are on a peace process or not.
Few if any would believe that.

however does not solely rest on Connolly, either he or McDowell could end the argument by being more transparent. McDowell could destroy Connolly with what he claims to know just as Connolly could destroy McDowell with what he claims to know.

The bit about McDowell is only conjecture though as we dont know if he knows any more other than whatever Feeney privately shared with him and which Feeney is under no obligation to share with us.

I guess that's the basic disagreement here, you believe the ball is firmly in Connollys court and he and only he can end it while I believe that either could and should finish this once and for all.

Primarally though because I am annoyed at Connollys by now obvious and blatant lack of transparency.I'd be fishy with McDowells motives here too if he hadnt laid out his stall on subversion vs the public interest.
I dont even have to make an effort to be fishy of Connolly at the moment, his lack of transparency here coming from a group that champions it makes it very fishy as I say you'd be gagging with the smell.

flogen

Earthman wrote:

As regards feeneys information, well its no different to him using the information to sack an employee.He felt he had grounds and I dont see anything in Feeneys character that would make him do that vindictively.
I wouldnt for insance be so patient with this situation if Feeney didnt ask for Connollys resignation.

Indeed, but I would like to know what his grounds are.

Thats where the call has to be made on the public interest issue.All of this is available for inspection at some point by a future non FF government.There will be a paper trail.

Not really good enough for me, for all we know this information will become available to us in 2035, I see no reason why any additional information isn't made available now. If there is no additional information then I don't there was enough evidence to conclude a threat and so that claim couldn't be made, the public interest issue wouldn't come into it. That's just my opinion.

I'd have no difficulty with your position were it not for Connollys lack of transparency here.It would seem strange to me that he wouldnt use his knowledge to blow McDowell out of the water on this unless of course he cant.
As I said, judging from your position , there can be no meeting of minds here.

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on here. I also think it's strange that Connolly has not blown McDowell out of the water with what he claims to know as fact, however I personally don't think that the claim made stands up based on the information that was made public (remember the claim was made before the silence, so McDowell couldn't count on that). Now I personally, in McDowells situation would not be able to confidently assume that Connolly would stay quiet on a claim of being a threat to national security based on the passport information, and I would guess there is more that he knows.
Our disagreement, as I already stated, seems to land on the issue that I want all information public while you are willing to believe that it exists and that is enough. Connolly's silence would imply that, yes, it does exist, but it doesn't vindicate McDowell because he still initially made the claim without the evidence (again if it's not public, it's no use and may as well not exist).

I dont have any basis for thinking McDowell isnt transparent here and neither do you.

Well if McDowell has been 100% transparent and has made all evidence public then he shouldnt have made the claim he made because he has nothing to prove it. While Connollys silence does raise questions, it doesn't vindicate the initial claim.

No body has asked Feeney specefically why he withdrew funding.McDowell hasnt indicated that his view is formed from anything other than what he gave Sam Smyth.
He may have information from Feeneys investigators that Connolly was in Columbia, we dont know -we can only conject on that one.
As regards Connolly-I can be categorical that he isnt being transparent.

True, we don't know. We are just assuming here. As I said though, if McDowell has made public all he knows then the initial claim should not have been made.

He's not even a citizen of this country afaik and his investigations were for his own busness,We have no right to demand what he knows, we can only request it.

I never suggested it be demanded from him, but if McDowell is using anything Feeney found then he should get the go ahead to release it, otherwise it's not use as evidence IMO.
The fact that he's not a citizen doesn't come into it, an Irishman in the same situation wouldn't be obliged to release information either, unless the issue went to trial.

That would be my thinking. I disagree for the simple reason that I value the public interest concern and that rises or falls with Connolly. [/qoute]

I value it too, I just don't think it exists based on the public evidence.

That goes back to what is more important, the public issue of a subversive having such powerfull reigns would be uppermost to me.
Again that rises or falls with Connolly.

I don't think the evidence shown is strong enough to call Connolly a subversive, and again, you cannot use his silence (however damning now) as evidence here because the initial claim was made before such silence became a fact.

I think we are fairly agreed that this could blow up in McDowells face.I think we are probably similar on the fishyness of Connollys stance of silence.

Yes, we are.

Our dividing line appears to be on the rating we put on the public interest and whether it was important enough based on what was there to raise it publically.

If you believe that the passport evidence is enough to raise the claim publically, then yes, I agree that we differ.
I think our main dividing line is this, though; We can both assume that there is more evidence, based soley on Chuck Feeney and his contact with the Minister. You are willing to use Feeney's reaction as proof that the evidence is strong against Connolly, but I am not. Feeney could decide to pull funding based on the passport issue because it doesn't look good for him to be connected to a man who may have been in Columbia (and whos brother was certainly there). I wouldn't think it was premature for Feeney to withdraw based on the evidence publicly available.
In other words, I am not willing to believe the knowledge of Feeney is strong enough to make the claim until I see it.

I think it was given that it seems clear to me that McDowell must have known the risks of doing so and must have been of the considered opinion that Connolly wouldnt be transparent.

I personally would not be able to come to that conclusion based soley on the passport evidence, given that Connolly was questioned by Gardai at the time and satisfied their claims (or didn't do enough to make them suspicious).

ministers have been sacked after stating things that were economical with the truth so , I dont think that.I think the public are more discerning with how they make up their minds to be honest and they certainly dont have blind faith in ministers.

Well, depending on the situation, yes, they have.
As for the public having blind faith, I never claimed they did, just that they would have more faith in a Minister than a Journalist.

Well you see, he wasnt out in Columbia according to McDowell on his own bat.
He was out there according to mcdowell trading military know how for money.
It's what that money would be used for back in Ireland that is the basis for McDowells concern.
It boils down to whether he was there then.
It also boils down to whether one believes that the Farc are on a peace process or not.
Few if any would believe that.

I cannot see how these flimsy passport pictures would make McDowell conclude that Connolly was there and was taking money from Farc. Unless he knows something we don't?

The bit about McDowell is only conjecture though as we dont know if he knows any more other than whatever Feeney privately shared with him and which Feeney is under no obligation to share with us.

True, but if McDowell has based his claim on something that Feeney has shared with him, it should be made public, McDowell and Feeney can sort out the details themselves. If it's not public it doesn't exist as evidence IMO.

Primarally though because I am annoyed at Connollys by now obvious and blatant lack of transparency.I'd be fishy with McDowells motives here too if he hadnt laid out his stall on subversion vs the public interest.
I dont even have to make an effort to be fishy of Connolly at the moment, his lack of transparency here coming from a group that champions it makes it very fishy as I say you'd be gagging with the smell.

I think it certainly boils down to the following:
If all the evidence made public is all that exists, you believe the claim is still well backed up, even before the silence. The silence just vindicates McDowell more. I believe that in this instance the claim shouldn't have been made and the silence isn't an issue, that comes after.
If there is evidence that hasn't been made public you are willing to believe it is good and strong based on the backing of the cabinet and the AG, and on the actions of Feeney. I am not, and believe that any claim made in the public domain must be backed up there also.

flogen

flogen wrote:

I see no reason why any additional information isn't made available now.

We'd have to conject there but maybe if theres further information, then maybe the AG advised McDowell not to release it.
That said theres definitely information that persuaded Feeney that something was dodgy and Feeney is not releasing that but he would have shared it with McDowell.

If there is no additional information then I don't there was enough evidence to conclude a threat and so that claim couldn't be made, the public interest issue wouldn't come into it. That's just my opinion.

I'd not agree with it though on account of Feeneys actions.

I also think it's strange that Connolly has not blown McDowell out of the water with what he claims to know as fact, however I personally don't think that the claim made stands up based on the information that was made public (remember the claim was made before the silence, so McDowell couldn't count on that). Now I personally, in McDowells situation would not be able to confidently assume that Connolly would stay quiet on a claim of being a threat to national security based on the passport information, and I would guess there is more that he knows.

Yeah more than likely what Feeney told him.

Our disagreement, as I already stated, seems to land on the issue that I want all information public while you are willing to believe that it exists and that is enough.

Well to be precise I'd be willing to conject that it exists.I'd be certain enough that something Feeney's investigators found out convinced him something dodgy was going on.

Connolly's silence would imply that, yes, it does exist, but it doesn't vindicate McDowell because he still initially made the claim without the evidence (again if it's not public, it's no use and may as well not exist).

Thats not certain though as (a) we can only conject if McDowell has more information but (b) we do know that Feeney spoke to McDowell after doing his own investigations and had enough to want Connolly to resign.

Well if McDowell has been 100% transparent and has made all evidence public then he shouldnt have made the claim he made because he has nothing to prove it. While Connollys silence does raise questions, it doesn't vindicate the initial claim.

I'm sure the whole cabinet and the AG discussed this and not just McDowell and I'm sure whatever it is that Feeney has as a result of his investigations played a big part in McDowell making his mind up on this before making the accusations.

We are just assuming here. As I said though, if McDowell has made public all he knows then the initial claim should not have been made.

Sam Smyth who has known Connolly for 30 years said the photograph looks like him and the still video I saw in the Independent looks like him without glasses.
Sam smyth reckons it probably could be him
Couple that with whatever made Feeney think he was dodgy and you have grounds for questions.

if McDowell is using anything Feeney found then he should get the go ahead to release it, otherwise it's not use as evidence IMO.

(1) its a fact Feeney(an honourable man) has concluded that Connolly has a case to answer and (2) McDowell agreed.
Theres no requirement there for a release of Feeneys information but there is a public interest issue in getting to the bottom of the suspicion especially with what Feeney(an honourable man) has concluded after hiring a world renouned team of investigators to dig a little on this.

The fact that he's not a citizen doesn't come into it, an Irishman in the same situation wouldn't be obliged to release information either, unless the issue went to trial.

I was just making the point that Feeney has more to be doing than Blackening someones name.It wouldnt be what he's about.The fact that he did what he did after his own investigations into the matter speaks for itself.The cabinet and McDowell agree that a question arose there and it is a public interest issue.
Feeney isnt someone who would deliberately blacken someones name and ergo even based on his actions, Connolly has questions to answer.

You can say that you should have his information but at the same time,I'd have to say, that his actions in relation to Connolly on their own raise eyebrows in terms of public interest here in that they prompt the same question.
The only answer to that question is going to come from Connolly.

I don't think the evidence shown is strong enough to call Connolly a subversive, and again, you cannot use his silence (however damning now) as evidence here because the initial claim was made before such silence became a fact.

The initial claim was certainly based on McDowells suspicions having seen the originals of the photographs and on whatever Feeney found out.
Both together are Valid unless one claims that Feeney is dishonourable-a man that the CPI saw fit to take funds from-a philantropist.

If you believe that the passport evidence is enough to raise the claim publically, then yes, I agree that we differ.

I've now seen the still video in the independent and read Sam Smyths comment on it.
Yes I definitely think its enough to at least raise eyebrows.
Together with Feeneys actions it goes beyond that straight into the public interest arena.

I think our main dividing line is this, though; We can both assume that there is more evidence, based soley on Chuck Feeney and his contact with the Minister. You are willing to use Feeney's reaction as proof that the evidence is strong against Connolly, but I am not.

Not as proof.Certainly not initially.I must link you to the other(now locked ) thread if I can find it on this which went to several pages back when this actually was news a couple of weeks ago.Back then I was hoping Connolly would clear this up.But as time has went on and I've looked into this more,I'm increasingly convinced of the need for answers here and the public interest issue.

Incidently thinking back on the old thread, nothing new has came up since on it so I was puzzled why 3 weeks after this was news, that a new thread came up going over the same ground we had all circled wagons on 3 weeks earlier.

Feeney could decide to pull funding based on the passport issue because it doesn't look good for him to be connected to a man who may have been in Columbia (and whos brother was certainly there). I wouldn't think it was premature for Feeney to withdraw based on the evidence publicly available.
In other words, I am not willing to believe the knowledge of Feeney is strong enough to make the claim until I see it.

[joke] thats a bit like thomas wanting to put his hands in Jesus's nail holes [/joke]
Couldnt resist that - sorry but that said I accept that as your position.
Regarding Feeney, he did see the need to do his own investigation so it's clear he wasnt going to take action based solely on what the minister said.
And before you say thats a reason for the minister not to have said what he said-he didnt say anything publically untill he had been speaking with Feeney and had his view copper fastened by the results of feeneys investigations.

I personally would not be able to come to that conclusion based soley on the passport evidence, given that Connolly was questioned by Gardai at the time and satisfied their claims (or didn't do enough to make them suspicious).

Neither did McDowell though he had his suspicions and looked into them.I'm not surprised that he was suspicious based on seeing the Columbian video still (in the indo it was put beside a pic of Connolly and they are remarkably similar) and based on what Sam Smyth has said.
Connolly took a sebatical from his news paper in April 2001 by the way according to Smyth-the same time frame that the passport was used.

they would have more faith in a Minister than a Journalist.

I dont know about that given all the flack ministers get.I'll bet they get more eggs thrown at them than journalists do.

I think it certainly boils down to the following:
If all the evidence made public is all that exists, you believe the claim is still well backed up, even before the silence.

I've not agreed with the claim.I've agreed with the question being asked out of public interest and I've agreed that its fishy that Connolly has gone to ground on it.

If there is evidence that hasn't been made public you are willing to believe it is good and strong based on the backing of the cabinet and the AG, and on the actions of Feeney. I am not, and believe that any claim made in the public domain must be backed up there also.

I havent made any determination on the evidence.
It's raised my eyebrow and I do believe that there are questions there that out of public interest must be answered.

LostinBlanch

Earthman wrote:

[joke] thats a bit like thomas wanting to put his hands in Jesus's nail holes [/joke]
Couldnt resist that - sorry but that said I accept that as your position.

Earthman, I have to say I've enjoyed this thread but on the whole I am with flogen on this one. Wherever McDowell is concerned I am extremely leery of his actions and whatever justifications he chooses to put on them. I have said this before, I think that he and the rest of the government are more concerned about the CPI and whatever it might uncover in the next year or so preceeding the election. There are more than enough issues that merit proper independent investigation, not least McDowells astonishing fast track purchase of Thornton Hall as a site for a new prison in less than 48 hours at what appears to be significantly above market price levels. I think the much like Dev, McDowell sees himself as being able to look into his own heart and determine what is good for the Irish people; and if that happens to stop investigations into areas that are likely to cause the government and possibly himself problems in the run up to the election well and good. :rolleyes:

The central issue is the existence of the CPI. The government (and PDs in particular) have been practically rabid on this issue as they know that if there were any more scandals they would probably lose a number of seats in the election, including Harney and McDowells. Attacking Connolly in such a fashion is merely a means to an end, and not the end itself. McDowell seems to think that he has carte blanche to act in ways that he would rightly castigate other politicians for acting. But then of course he seems to conflate his views of what's good for him as being what's good for the nation.

But I agree that Connolly isn't doing the CPI any good by refusing to say where he was in April 2001 or by resigning and letting someone else take over.

Earthman wrote:

Sam Smyth who has known Connolly for 30 years said the photograph looks like him and the still video I saw in the Independent looks like him without glasses.
Sam smyth reckons it probably could be him

He wasn't so gung ho in his interview with Dunphy before Christmas. I haven't seen the still so I can't say. But I am suspiscious of Smyth who seems to be nothing more than McDowells mouthpiece in this instance and others.
http://www.villagemagazine.ie/article.asp?sid=1&sud=40&aid=932