Showing posts with label PADDYS DAY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PADDYS DAY. Show all posts

Sunday, 15 March 2015

PADDYS DAY INTERNATIONAL




Lá Fhéile Pádraig sona daoibh 

Pronunced

(law aila pawdrig suna deeve)


Dance as if no one were watching,

Sing as if no one were listening,

And live every day as if it were your last.

WHEN GENOCIDE BECAME "FAMINE" : IRELAND, 1845 - 1850

This petition seeks your support for a campaign to:

* Persuade relevant authors, editors and website content providers to stop using the word ‘Famine’ for what took place in Ireland between 1845 and 1850, and start using terms such as, "The Great Hunger" or "An Gorta Mór".

* To call on the Government of Ireland and its Ministers, and members of all political parties to correctly call it Án Ócras Mór, Án Gorta Mór, or The Great Hunger.

It should be signed by anyone, of any religious, political or intellectual background, who wants the truth about Ireland’s history to be faced and justly discussed, not evaded or concealed.

In proud and loving memory of the Men, Women and Children of Ireland who suffered and died in the Great Hunger.

---

This petition has been launched by a Facebook group, Irish Holocaust - Not Famine. The Push to educate in Facts.

Along side our website : http://www.irishgenocide.webs.com 

Our aims are dedicated to correcting and spreading the truth about what should rightfully be called not the ‘Great Famine’ but the Great Hunger (An Gorta Mór).

A letter supported by the response to this petition will go to authors and editors of books on the ‘Famine’, and of works on Irish history which refer to the ‘Famine’. (This will include content providers of appropriate websites.) The letter will also go to Irish Government Ministers and Politicians of all hues.

Why? To ask them to consider recent and ongoing research showing that the Great Hunger was the direct consequence of deliberate, intentional genocidal acts against the Irish people; and after they have done this, to acknowledge the overwhelming weight of the evidence that is being uncovered.

Authors, editors etc could then make their acknowledgment clear to all by (e.g.) using the term ‘Great Hunger’ instead of or alongside terms such as ‘famine’, or by saying in the preface to a new edition of their work that, in the light of recent research, they feel the exclusive use of the word ‘famine’ to be misleading and distorting.

Government Ministers and politicians could then speak out, with courage, about what took place between 1840 and 1845, and no longer dodge the issue in deference to the sensitivities of, "Other Governments".

---

Background

History books, text books and websites around the world still repeat and give life to the idea that the ‘Great Famine’ of 1845 – 1850 was a severe and prolonged food shortage arising purely from the effects of potato blight. This grossly distorts the truth: ‘famine’ implies that the food shortages arose simply from natural causes.

In fact, armed British troops seized Ireland’s agricultural produce and exported it to Britain – while the Irish people were dying from starvation. There was no food shortage to blame on potato blight; exports of all food products from Ireland increased during the worst years of the ‘Famine’. Ireland actually produced sufficient food to feed its population twice over. Also, British troops and government officials blocked many attempts at relief from entering Ireland.

The 1841 census recorded an Irish population of 8.2 million. By 1851, the figure had dropped by 26% to 6.5 million. These statistics give an indication of the scale of the disaster, but since many of those affected by the Great Hunger lived in remote and inaccessible places, it is possible far more died than has ever been thought.

Today, what took place is increasingly being suspected by millions in Ireland and in the diaspora on reading the deluge of information being published by scholars of high renown. Increasing numbers of people worldwide want what they feel is a deliberate attempt to inflict genocide on the people of Ireland discussed and exposed and if true described as a crime against the people. People are now learning the knowledge that was withheld from them at school and questioning why our education system treats the subject as something not to be spoken of. That is not good enough. We need the truth, we need to know our history and until we know our past we are ignorant of the events of our own country. There was a food shortage in potatoes but people were abandoned by government and the first duty of government is the welfare of it's people. Britain failed miserably and the question is, did they do it deliberately? The signatories of this petition seem to think so. They feel that sites using this tragedy in our country as a present day Tourist attraction' and persist in using the word famine are wrong and are misleading.

---

Every name added to this petition will make even stronger the case for using terms such as the Great Hunger – terms which admit, instead of denying, the truth of what took place. Only when the word ‘Famine’ has been abandoned will future generations describe what took place for what it truly was, failure of government and continued questioning as to the real motive for the neglect of millions. Was it genocide? many think it was. If so, stop describing it as famine.

Add your signature – help the truth be known by everyone.



This is the link - it only takes seconds to put yr name on it -

http://www.petitions24.com/when_famine_became_genocide_ireland_1845_-_1850
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Ireland, Ireland

Friday, 13 March 2015

WILLIE PUTS MURPHY UP THE POLE FOR PADDYS DAY




NewsFlash Newry/South Armagh

 Willie Frazer was caught on NightVision putting Conor Murphy up the pole in South Armagh, while removing the Irish tricolur from poles, before Saint Patricks Day. Reports are also coming in, that Sinn Fein have offered the RUC/psni the use of a portacabin to use as a canteen while they are removing dissident posters from the poles in the area. It will be very tricky, with an election looming, so every election poster, has to be strip searched and their anal cavity probed, for boobies.

 One traditional smuggler, who wishes to remain anonymous, said, "We have offered one of our biggest portacabins for use by the RUC/psni so they can all have a cup of tay and we'll throw in a drop of discount whiskey as well. We are also offering them discount cigarettes and diesel. It's one of our biggest portacabins and 20 RUC men could fit in there at a time. You could also throw in a few PSNI women if they are fit enough. However we want it back in time for the General election, so we can use it outside a polling station. We are also offering to send over a few of the Bhoys, for entertainment.

 Willie Frazer asked us to help them out, so that they can remove all the dissident posters and Tricolours in South Armagh. We can also supply them with a bit of Waccy Baccy and anti-depressants, to keep their spirits up. He also said that Willie and his loyal brethern, can also use it for a night, on their motorcade to Dublin, while British drones overhead, can escort it all the way to Dublin using the backroads across the border, round Cross. We've also offered Willie a few of our Bhoys for the night and for the Craic"



How Governments Twist Terrorism


States craft terror definitions and designations to absolve themselves and satisfy their constituencies.

 By Philip Giraldi

March 12, 2015 "ICH" - "American Conservative" - The Washington Post reportsthat “terrorism trend lines are ‘worse than at any other point in history.’” But what is terrorism? It has frequently been pointed out that “terrorism” is a tactic, not an actual physical adversary, but it is less often noted that a simple definition of what constitutes terrorism is hardly universally accepted, while the designation itself is essentially political. The glib assertion that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter fails to capture the distinction’s consequences as the terror label itself increasingly comes with a number of legal and practical liabilities attached. Describing an organization as terroristic in order to discredit it has itself become a tactic, and one that sometimes has only limited connections to what the group in question actually believes or does.

 The bone of contention in defining terrorism is where to draw the line in terms of the use of violence in furtherance of a political objective. In practice, it is generally accepted that state players who employ violence do so within a social framework that confers legitimacy, while nonstate players who use political violence are ipso facto terrorists, or at least susceptible to being tagged with that label, which confers upon them both illegitimacy and a particularly abhorrent criminality. But some on the receiving end of such a Manichean distinction object, noting that the laws defining terror are themselves drawn up by the governments and international organizations, which inevitably give themselves a pass in terms of their own potential liability. They would argue that established regimes will inevitably conspire to label their enemies terrorists to marginalize both resistance movements and internal dissent in such a way as to diminish the credibility of the groups that are so targeted. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has recently been doing precisely that, and one might reasonably argue that government use of violence is often in practice indistinguishable from the actions of nonstate players.

 Some common dictionary definitions of terrorism include engaging in “the systematic use of terror,” surely an indication of the inscrutability of an issue when the word must be used to define itself. The United Nations has been unsuccessfully negotiating a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism since 2002 that would define terror as causing death or serious injury or destroying or damaging public or private property “to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.” The United States Federal criminal code uses similar language, as does the Patriot Act, with the key elements being the use of violence or physical destruction to “intimidate or coerce” a civilian population or an existing government.

 Governments are aware of what can be accomplished by invoking the word “terrorism.” The diplomacy-averse United States frequently hides behind the label, as it is prohibited by law from negotiating with groups so-labeled, and thereby avoids having to confront the possible legitimacy of what they represent. And it also justifies a uniformly violent response, which is invariably described as self-defense.

 Fourteen years ago the “global war on terror” was used to justify wholesale American intervention in predominantly Muslim countries. A number of European countries, including France and Britain, have followed the example of the two Patriot Acts by introducing antiterrorism legislation that provides special police and intelligence service authorities that limit normal legal protections in terrorism cases. The broadly written laws have largely rendered the authorities immune from either regulation or prosecution, and governments in the West have generally been reluctant to allow any third-party inquiries into the related behavior of military and police forces. In the United States the state secret privilege, originally intended to prohibit the exposure of classified information in court, has been used to completely derail judicial proceedings relating to offenses allegedly committed by the government in terrorism cases.

 And critics of the essentially hypocritical double standard used in defining terrorism certainly have a point. One might reasonably argue that the use of drones, in which “signature” targets are killed because they match a profile, fits comfortably within the definition of terrorism. During 2003-4, American Army and Marine forces in Fallujah sometimes shelled and bombed targets in the city indiscriminately and were certainly responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths. The Israeli Defense Forces killed thousands of civilians in two incursions into Gaza as well as several attacks on Lebanon. There was no declaration of war to justify the use of armed force in either case, and independent observers noted that many of the civilian casualties could have been avoided, normally a defining factor that makes an incident terror. Both Israel and the United States turned the tables on the situation by referring to their opponents and victims as “terrorists.” There has been no accountability for the deaths because it was two governments that carried out the killing.

 In a world seemingly obsessed with terrorism it was inevitable that something like ananti-terrorism industry would grow dramatically. Every television and radio network has its own stable of pundits who pontificate on every violent incident, and there also are well-compensated freelancers, who describe themselves as experts, such as Evan Kohlmann and Steve Emerson. Emerson recently had to apologize after claiming that Birmingham, England had a number of no-go areas controlled by local Muslim extremists.

 It should be no surprise that lawyers have now also gotten into the game. In 1996 Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which allows victims of terrorism to file civil suits in federal and state courts against sponsors or supporters of terrorism. Once you have a group or individual labeled as terrorist, or providing assistance to terrorists, there are a number of options you can pursue. The burgeoning antiterrorism industry appears to be in some ways linked to the increasing employment of Lawfare, which uses the legal system to wage war by alternative means, making it possible to obtain a favorable judgment and damages from the assets of a recognized terrorist organization. Such litigation benefits from favorable legislation in the United States that makes terrorism a worldwide crime subject to U.S. judicial review.

 Recent court cases have involved both states that allegedly sponsor terrorism or actual organizations that are now parts of governments that either currently or at one time were perceived to be terrorists. Many of the groups targeted are enemies of Israel, and the Israeli Lawfare center Shurat HaDin is most active in pursuing such litigation. In a recent case in New York City, the Palestinian Authority was successfully sued by a group of Israelis and Americans over terrorist attacks that took place in Israel in 2002-4. If the appeal fails, the Palestinian Authority will be required to pay $1 billion in damages and will be bankrupted, with negative consequences for the United States, which has been seeking to create a viable government on the West Bank.

 The U.S. Department of State identifies four countries as state sponsors of terrorism, making them prime targets for sanctions and other legal action. They are Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Iran. Cuba is an anomaly as it has not threatened anyone in decades but remains on the list due to the deep passions within America’s politically powerful Cuban Lobby. Sudan likewise should not be so designated, as even the U.S. government admits that it is cooperative on terrorism issues.

 This leaves Syria and Iran, both of which are regarded as state sponsors of terrorism even though both are themselves victims of terrorist attacks carried out by groups supported by the United States. They are on the list because they harbor or cooperate with Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. All three groups consider themselves to be resistance movements against the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, but Israel regards all three as terrorists, a view shared by the United States on the state department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list. That viewpoint is not necessarily shared by many European governments, which regard the organizations as having evolved into legitimate political parties. There are also thousands of individuals and groups considered to be terroristic or criminal, collected by the U.S. Department of Justice on its Special Designated Nationals List. Individuals and organizations on the list have their assets blocked and are subject to other punitive action by the United States government.

 Being designated by the Department of the Treasury or state does not necessarily mean that someone or some organization was actually involved in terrorism. The Texas-based Holy Land Foundation, an Islamic charity, was declared a terrorist organization in 2001. Its officers were convicted and imprisoned in a 2008 trial because the Treasury Department determined ex post facto that it had given money to Hamas before that group was itself named as a terrorist organization.

 Inclusion on the State or Treasury lists can mean that there is solid evidence of wrongdoing, but it can also represent mere insinuations or a strong desire to see a group singled out for punishment. In any event, once a group or person is designated for a list, it is difficult to get off. Organizations that have not engaged in terrorist activity for many years remain on the list while other groups that are active escape censure. Recently, the Mujaheddin e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist group thatkilled six Americans in the 1970s, was removed from the list under political pressure from Congress and the media. Again, Israel was involved. MEK is an enemy of the current government in Tehran and is itself an important component of the Israeli intelligence effort against Iran, having been involved in the fabrication of information suggesting that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program as well as participating in the assassinations of Tehran’s scientists.

 So what terrorism actually consists of very much depends on one’s perspective, rendering the word itself largely meaningless. But those who are listed as terrorists experience real consequences even accepting that the designation is both selectively applied and politicized. The United States and Israel in particular use the terrorism label to demonize opponents, drum up fear, and generate popular support for security policies that might otherwise be unpalatable. They also justify their own behavior by asserting that they occupy the moral high ground in the defense of the world against terror, a claim that certainly should be regarded with considerable skepticism.

 Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ireland, Newry, Newry, Newry and Mourne BT34, UK

Thursday, 12 March 2015

HAPPY PADDYS DAY COUNTS



On the 2 March 1972, United Kingdom, Paedophile, Prime Minister, Edward Heath stated in the House of Commons:


"The Government, having reviewed the whole matter with great care and with reference to any future operations, have decided that the techniques ... will not be used in future as an aid to interrogation... The statement that I have made covers all future circumstances." Since that time, the UK have outsourced their torture and taught it to torturers worldwide. Now, the the British Government have declared, that they are leaving the European Court, because they can no longer comply with European Law, neither can the comply with International Law, and have refused to join the International Criminal Court. They are currently torturing, politically interned Irish POWs in Maghaberry, by unecessary strip searching and sticking everything up the arse, as in Kenya in the articles below, which is typical paedophile torture. There is modern equipment as used in airports and prisons all over the world, to carry out this work, without torture and degradation.

As far as Irish Blog is concerned, there is no need to write anymore about UK standards of injustice, the above actions, confirm in themaelves, their uncivilized status.They have just sent the SAS back into Ireland and without European Law, can torture at will in Occupied Ireland again in despite a PSEUDO PEACE PROCESS. They also plan to use Occupied Ireland again, as a test laboratory, to develop further drone technology.

In Irish Blog's Court, they are proven C(O)UNTS!

CASE DISMISSED !


Paper trail: from Northern Ireland’s hooded men to CIA’s global torture



In August 1971 the UK authorities arrested and interned hundreds of men in Northern Ireland. Fourteen of them were selected for "special treatment" - torture in a specially-built interrogation centre at a British Army camp. The men were subjected to the soon-to-be infamous "five techniques" of hooding, stress positions, white noise, sleep deprivation and deprivation of food and water - combined with brutal beatings & death threats.

Allegations soon emerged of abuse. Amnesty International sent its first ever research mission to the UK to investigate, interviewing the men and finding some of them to still be black and blue with bruises.

In it's October 30 1971 report, Amnesty found a "prima facie case of brutality and torture".



Responding to public outrage in Ireland, the Irish government made history by taking the first ever inter-state case under the European Convention of Human Rights, alleging the UK had tortured the men.

While the UK denied torture, Prime Minister Ted Heath soon announced a prohibition by UK forces of any future use of the techniques.

In 1976, the European Commission on Human Rights found that the UK had tortured the men, but the UK appealed the decision claiming that the techniques used had no long-term impact.

The appeal succeeded and in 1978 the European Court of Human Rights found that the interrogation amounted to "inhuman and degrading treatment" but not torture.

The difference was subsequently seized upon by those who wanted to use similar interrogation techniques.

In 2002, Jay Bybee in the US Attorney General's office prepared legal advice on what could and could not be done to interrogation subjects. He quoted liberally from the Ireland v UK 1978 decision in the infamous 'torture memos':





Within months, the CIA was using the "five techniques" in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world.

Here's an excerpt from a CIA report on what they did when interrogating a "high value detainee" (HVD). The similarity of the torture techniques to those applied in Northern Ireland is striking.



With the publication today of the US Senate report into CIA torture, more of the horror of US abuses has now been laid bare.

Meanwhile, happy with the downgraded European Court decision and the "special stigma of torture" removed, the UK quietly forgot about Ted Heath's supposed probihition. In Iraq, the techniques were put to use again.

They cost Baha Mousa his life. The inquiry into his death found that the Iraqi's 2003 demise was caused by "factors including lack of food and water, heat, exhaustion, fear, previous injuries and the hooding and stress positions used by British troops - and a final struggle with his guards".
Letter from Home Secretary Merlyn Rees to Prime Minister Jim Callaghan in 1977, when the UK was arguing (successfully, as it turned out) in Strasbourg that the techniques used were not torture

Meanwhile, through work by the Pat Finucane Centre, NUI Galway and RTÉ, files were discovered in the UK state archives in Kew suggesting that Britain misled the Court in 1978, withholding key evidence demonstrating they knew the techniques had long-term health impacts on the victims, and that the torture had been authorised at UK Cabinet level.

Following calls from Amnesty International and others, the Irish government has now decided to appeal the European Court decision in light of the new evidence. Perhaps the 'hooded men' will finally have their day in a Strasbourg Court with the full truth before it.

Shockingly, to date, no proper, independent investigation of the torture of the 'hooded men' has ever been carried out by the UK authorities and no-one has ever been held to account.

With total impunity in the UK for torture conducted in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, it is perhaps no wonder that the US followed the example of their closest ally when it came to fighting their 21st century "war on terror".New evidence of British colonial atrocities has not changed our national ability to disregard it
Members of the Devon Regiment round up local people in a search for Mau Mau fighters in Kenya in 1954. Photograph: Popperfoto/Popperfoto/Getty Images

@GeorgeMonbiot



There is one thing you can say for the Holocaust deniers: at least they know what they are denying. In order to sustain the lies they tell, they must engage in strenuous falsification. To dismiss Britain's colonial atrocities, no such effort is required. Most people appear to be unaware that anything needs to be denied.

The story of benign imperialism, whose overriding purpose was not to seize land, labour and commodities but to teach the natives English, table manners and double-entry book-keeping, is a myth that has been carefully propagated by the rightwing press. But it draws its power from a remarkable national ability to airbrush and disregard our past.

Last week's revelations, that the British government systematically destroyed the documents detailing mistreatment of its colonial subjects, and that the Foreign Office then lied about a secret cache of files containing lesser revelations, is by any standards a big story. But it was either ignored or consigned to a footnote by most of the British press. I was unable to find any mention of the secret archive on the Telegraph's website. The Mail's only coverage, as far as I can determine, was an opinion piece by a historian called Lawrence James, who used the occasion to insist that any deficiencies in the management of the colonies were the work of "a sprinkling of misfits, incompetents and bullies", while everyone else was "dedicated, loyal and disciplined".

The British government's suppression of evidence was scarcely necessary. Even when the documentation of great crimes is abundant, it is not denied but simply ignored. In an article for the Daily Mail in 2010, for example, the historian Dominic Sandbrook announced that "Britain's empire stands out as a beacon of tolerance, decency and the rule of law … Nor did Britain countenance anything like the dreadful tortures committed in French Algeria." Could he really have been unaware of the history he is disavowing?

Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.

Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.

Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.

No matter. Even those who acknowledge that something happened write as if Elkins and her work did not exist. In the Telegraph, Daniel Hannan maintains that just eleven people were beaten to death. Apart from that, "1,090 terrorists were hanged and as many as 71,000 detained without due process".

The British did not do body counts, and most victims were buried in unmarked graves. But it is clear that tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of Kikuyu died in the camps and during the round-ups. Hannan's is one of the most blatant examples of revisionism I have ever encountered.

Without explaining what this means, Lawrence James concedes that "harsh measures" were sometimes used, but he maintains that "while the Mau Mau were terrorising the Kikuyu, veterinary surgeons in the Colonial Service were teaching tribesmen how to deal with cattle plagues." The theft of the Kikuyu's land and livestock, the starvation and killings, the widespread support among the Kikuyu for the Mau Mau's attempt to reclaim their land and freedom: all vanish into thin air. Both men maintain that the British government acted to stop any abuses as soon as they were revealed.

What I find remarkable is not that they write such things, but that these distortions go almost unchallenged. The myths of empire are so well-established that we appear to blot out countervailing stories even as they are told. As evidence from the manufactured Indian famines of the 1870s and from the treatment of other colonies accumulates, British imperialism emerges as no better and in some cases even worse than the imperialism practised by other nations. Yet the myth of the civilising mission remains untroubled by the evidence.

• A fully referenced version of this article can be found at www.monbiot.com
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ireland, Ireland

Friday, 28 February 2014

SHITTER ISLAND IS FULL happy Paddy's Day !






Tags

See other tags

Criminal lawyer to interview McCabe over garda misconduct claims

Seán Guerin is tasked with examining the whistleblower’s claims that gardaí mishandled a number of cases.

18 hours ago 6,719 Views  16 Comments
THE GOVERNMENT HAS this evening released the terms of reference for criminal lawyer Seán Guerin’s inquiry into allegations of garda misconduct made by whistleblower Maurice McCabe with the aim of concluding the investigation within eight weeks.
McCabe claims a number of cases were mishandled by gardaí and that Justice Minister Alan Shatter was aware of this.
Guerin is to conduct an independent examination of the cases to see if there are grounds for the establishment of an Commission of Investigation.
The terms of reference published this evening are as follows:
  • To conduct an independent review and undertake a thorough examination of the action taken by An Garda Síochána pertaining to certain allegations of grave deficiencies in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, in the County of Cavan and elsewhere, made by Sergeant Maurice McCabe as specified in:
a) the dossier compiled by Sgt Maurice McCabe and furnished to An Taoiseach on the 19th February 2014 and
b) the letter understood to be from Sgt Maurice McCabe to the Confidential Recipient, Mr Oliver Connolly, dated 23 January 2012 , part of which was furnished to An Taoiseach on the 21st day of February 2014.
  • To interview Sgt Maurice McCabe and any other such person as may be considered necessary and capable of providing relevant and material assistance to this review in relation to the aforesaid allegations and to receive and consider any relevant documentation that may be provided by Sergeant McCabe or such other person.
  • To examine all documentation and data held by An Garda Síochána, the Department of Justice and Equality, and any other entity or public body as is deemed relevant to the allegations set out in the documents at 1(a) and (b) above.
  • To communicate with An Garda Síochána and any other relevant entity or public body in relation to any relevant documentation and information and to examine what steps, if any, have been taken by them, to investigate and resolve the allegations and complaints contained in the documentation referenced at 1(a) and (b) above.
  • To review the adequacy of any investigation or inquiry instigated by An Garda Síochána or any other relevant entity or public body into the incidents and events arising from the papers furnished at 1(a), 1(b) and 2 above.
  • To consider if, taking into account relevant criminal, civil and disciplinary aspects, there is a sufficient basis for concern as to whether all appropriate steps were taken by An Garda Síochána or any other relevant entity or public body to investigate and address the specified complaints.
  • To advise, arising from this review, what further measures, if any, are warranted in order to address public concerns including whether it is considered desirable in the public interest for the Government to establish a Commission of Investigation pursuant to the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 and, if so, the matters to be investigated .
  • At the conclusion of the aforesaid review, within eight weeks of 27th February, 2014 or so soon as may be thereafter, to deliver a Report to An Taoiseach on the matters set out at 1, 5, 6, and 7 above.
The government said today these terms were agreed on the advice of the Attorney General.

Read: ‘Experienced criminal lawyer’ to examine garda whistleblower’s dossier of allegations>




MPs summon security services watchdog over Snowden leaks

Sir Mark Waller, intelligence services commissioner, has repeatedly refused to address home affairs select committee
Keith Vaz, chairman of the home affairs select committee i
Keith Vaz, chairman of the committee, said it was disappointed by Sir Mark Waller's refusal to attend. Photograph: Linda Nylind for the Guardian
A security services watchdog, Sir Mark Waller, has been summoned to appear before MPs after he repeatedly refused to appear to answer their questions over the Edward Snowden leaks and other counter-terrorism issues.
Waller, who is the intelligence services commissioner, has refused to appear before the Commons home affairs select committee in a rare clash over the parliamentary accountability of Britain's intelligence agencies.
The summons was issued at midday on Thursday and is a rare move by a parliamentary committee which has the power to send for people and papers. The order to appear on 18 March was approved without a vote on the committee.
Waller is one of two former senior judges charged with the oversight of the security services, including MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, which have been at the centre of disclosures over the US National Security Agency's mass digital surveillance programmes.
The other retired judge, Sir Anthony May, is responsible specifically for oversight of the interception capabilities of the security services. He told the committee earlier that the 570,000 requests a year for communications data by public authorities was "possibly too large".
Keith Vaz, the chairman of the committee, said: "The intelligence services commissioner plays a vital role in keeping under review the way in which the home secretary and the intelligence services use the powers which they have been granted by parliament. This function was conferred on the commissioner by act of parliament, and Sir Mark must be accountable to parliament for the way in which he carries them out.
"Both the information commissioner and the interception of communications commissioner have accepted invitations to give evidence to the committee in the last few weeks. We do not see why the intelligence services commissioner should be any different and the committee was disappointed by his refusal to attend.
"Sir Mark has referred us to his published report. While the information in this report is useful to the committee, effective parliamentary scrutiny requires the opportunity to ask questions and receive full answers.
"We have therefore taken the unusual step of summoning Sir Mark. This happens only very rarely, where an essential witness declines to appear in response to an invitation. Indeed, it is the only time that this committee has summoned a witness in this parliament," he said.
The clash comes a fortnight after the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, called for a major overhaul of the oversight of Britain's intelligence services, including reform of the commissioners' roles as part of his campaign against "unaccountable power".
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Ireland, Ireland
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)