Sloppy, opaque journalism

It seems that Mark Hennessy, a senior political correspondent for the Irish Times, is a bit caught up by the excitement of talking to a "senior Irish political source" and forgot to do his homework. "The IRA is using untraceable money stolen from the Northern Bank robbery
last December to buy properties for cash in the United Kingdom, the Government believes, " he writes, and then seems to believe that we should all believe as well.

Mark Hennessy believes it himself, as he said on RTE Radio 1 after others began questioning his sources and methods. But why should we believe Mark? It's reasonalbe speculation. Surely, somebody does have about £26m in Northern Bank notes that they'd like to get off their hands. Surely, putting some of that into property seems reasonable. But I for one would like a bit of evidence that 1) it's the IRA, and 2) it's going into property. I could have written the same article myself without a shred of evidence.

The IRA are no doubt a prime suspect in the robbery, but as we all learned from the recent Iraq war, government beliefs are not always correct. We've had assertions of guilt from the chief of the PSNI, from the Irish government, from semi-state monitoring committees... but not from a court of law. We had assertions up and down the US and UK governments (and a few others as well) about weapons in Iraq, but evidence was unfortunately a bit harder to come by, as the NY Times proclaims in it's headline today. The politicians, it says, were "dead wrong".

But back to Ireland. The 'evidence' we have instead is the word of an anonymous "political" source, and some dodgy statistics. More on these numbers, but first, the source: why should he or she remain anonymous? Pressed by the radio panel, Hennessy refused to identify the source without explanation, silently invoking that highest of journalist principles of protecting your source to the bitter end. But what if your source deserves no cover? Would the source lose his or her job if he correctly stated that the government believes the IRA is buying property? Would that source's life come under danger if his or her identity were revealed? I think not. What if, in fact, this source is just leading you on to print what the government wants printed. That other of highest of journalistic principles is supposed to be delivering the truth to your readers. Here the truth is quite obscured.

But the most inane part of the article comes from those statistics.

The laundering legislation requires estate agents and others to declare all transactions over £10,000 to the Financial Intelligence Division of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The NCIS in 2003 was told of 100,000 such transactions and this number is understood to have increased rapidly since, particularly after the laundering legislation was further tightened in March 2004.

Were these cash transactions? That would make it a bit more remarkable, and I would expect the paper of record to make that distinction clear. But 100,000... that seems like an awful lot of fraudulent transactions. Surely, the bulk of these were explainable and legal, but still reported. And if the legislation were tightened (tightened how? Lower threshold? Non-cash transactions included as well?), one would expect that the number of transactions reported would rise even in the absense of increased fraud.

But who would check on that?

Harvard clearly losing its wits

Harvard is engaging in some of the most dispicable and condescending pseudo-PC behavior I've ever seen from a university. It is trying to ban a room cleaning service, started by an entrepreneurial student, because of the "demeaning" status it confers on its student employees.

What kind of whiny wimps are running Harvard? More to the point, what kind of fucking idiot students are running their newspaper? Would they ban all cleaning services, to make the whole community more unified? Maybe all those janitors that they lobbied for "living wages" some years ago shouldn't have jobs at all, since they are clearly inferior in our eyes because of their employment.

Is serving dinners, re-shelving books or folding clothes in a shop any less "demeaning" than vacumming or folding sheets? We could do all these tasks ourselves without too much undue effort. Perhaps they think that students can't have jobs at all without projecting their clearly inferior economic status. How do jobs after graduation fit into the mix, or are they demeaning as well to those not blessed with a personal endowment or trust fund?

But they focus on the egalitarian nature of dorm living. A few other issues pop into mind. Does one wealthy student's expensive wardrobe threaten "student unity"? Should all students wear the same dull garbs to outwardly project their unity? What about other personal effects, like computers or extensive and expensive CD collections?

Weak minded fools up there in Cambridge. PC nonsense run completely amock. Clear evidence why Princeton is and has always been a better school.

No Republican sympathy left

When I came to Ireland, I had a fairly vague but (typically pre-9/11 American) semi-romatic view of the IRA. Weren't these the guys fighting the continuing oppression of a foreign power? Weren't their attacks directed at corrupt police and foreign security installations, even though they inevitably caused some civilian casualties in the process? Didn't they have the moral high ground and the understood, if unspoken, support of most of the people of Ireland?

These questions have complex and different answers depending on who you put them to, but suffice to say that the answers that became clear once in Ireland, and in Dublin especially, were not Yes, Yes, Yes. More like Not reeeealy, Sometimes, and Not at all.

Dubliners, it seems to me, and especially the middle-class South-siders that I see the most of, are not outwardly interested in Northern Irish politics at all. Dublin is the commercial capital of Ireland, and contentious politics get in the way of that. Right from the start of Irish independence in 1922, most of the South -- those that had just gained freedom -- wanted to enjoy that little bit of peace and quiet and, God willing, prosperity that had eluded them for so long. It's not that they were forsaking those still in the North...it's that they were just looking out for themselves for once.

Those that do have an opinion at all seem to keep their cards very close to their chest -- there was always danger, I suppose, in having a strong opinion whereever you were. So it's been a struggle to suss out exactly what people do think about the IRA and the "Northern Question" without straying into very uncomfortable territory.

Even with my semi-romatic notions, I knew the time of the IRA had long come and gone, that these were really just hangers-on from an earlier struggle with higher stakes. Politicians had clearly taken over in the 1990's, and whether or not progress or change was happening fast enough for everybody, it was certainly happening. Few bullets or RPG were flying through the air, which nearly everybody agrees was progress. Bill Clinton put quite a bit of personal effort into pushing the peace process forward (and is duly remembered here for that rather than anything else), and the sensible backlash against terrorism of any kind following the September 11th attacks seemed at first to push both sides even close to peace.

But witness the sequence of events regarding the IRA since I have been in Ireland.

1. Continuing talks on peace, with heavy involvement from Tony Blair (UK Prime Minister), Bertie Ahern (Irish taoiseach, equivalent to PM), and all political leaders in the North. Goal of restoring power-sharing agreement between Catholic/Nationalist/Republican groups and Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist groups.

2. Offers of a full de-commissioning (weapons disposal) from the IRA, subject to certain political concessions and terms, mostly reasonalbe. Terms stated that the weapons would be "put beyond use" but not actually surrendered to any other force, and that this decommissioning could be witnessed and independently verified (a couple of priests and pastors, etc.), but not photographed or videotapaed.

3. Demands from Unionist / Loyalist leaders to have the decommissioning videotaped. They wanted assurances that the weapons (guns, RPGs and plastic explosives, mostly) were gone, and wouldn't come back if it suited the IRA. I think I would want the same. The word of priests isn't that credible at the moment, and eye witnesses are never reliable.

4. Continued demands from Sinn Fein et al that several IRA members who killed a garda (Irish police officer) in the course of a bank robbery should be freed as part of a prisoner release agreement for "political" criminals. They shot the seated garda, who never drew his own gun, multiple times at close range in the course of robbing a delivery van.

5. Breakdown of the talks to restore power sharing, with the IRA saying that others were trying to "humiliate" them with video evidence. This "humiliation" talk is the talk of 8-year-olds, not statesmen or revolutionaries.

6. Massive bank robbery (~$40 million) in the North, most likely carried out by Republican paramilitary groups (ie, the IRA or some branch thereof). There is immediately speculation that the scale and sophistication of the operation make it a paramilitary job. Others speculate the IRA, perhaps about to go out of business, wants to finance its retirement.

7. Continued denials by Sinn Fein leaders, who are in regular communication (if not complete cahoots, as some say) with IRA leaders, that the IRA had anything to do with the robbery.

8. A few sparks around Sinn Fein's refusal to classify the IRA killing of a mother who aided a wounded British soldier back in the 70's as a "crime" or a "murder". They called it unfortunate and wrong, but didn't go much further than that.

9. Continued claims that the IRA was in fact behind the robbery, from the chief of the police in the North, and both UK and Irish governments. I didn't like the idea of trial by media, and it seems innocent-until-proven-guilty-in-courts should apply to (illegal) groups as well as individuals, but the credibility of Sinn Fein and IRA both collapsed.

10. The end of a media "open secret", in which several newspapers and several Dail (Irish parliament) members openly state that Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, and Martin McGuinness, their chief negotiator, are 2 of the 7 members of the IRA Army Council. Adams had publicly denied his IRA membership despite much evidence to the contrary, while McGuiness admits his past, but not current, IRA membership. As the IRA claims political legitimacy stemming from 1922, they consider this Army Council the legitimate government of the island of Ireland.

11. Increased violence in paramilitary-controlled areas of the North, primarily in the form of "punishment beatings", knee-capping (ie, bullet through the kneecap) and "padre pios", in which the victim is forced to clasp his hands together as if praying, and then gets a bullet through both hands. The wound would then resemble the stigmata that Padre Pio famously claimed to have. This violence is nearly all Catholic-on-Catholic (and to a lesser extent Protestant-on-Protestant), and stems from criminal disputes around drug dealing or hijacking, or sometimes for petty offenses like going out with the wrong guys sister or ex-girlfriend. These are a far cry from the original intent of "policing" Catholic ghettos and keeping anti-social elements out.

12. And then this... In a Belfast pub frequented by Republicans (IRA, Sinn Fein and ordinary sympathers), an altercation breaks out between an IRA man and another man in the bar, apparently over some overheard comment about the IRA man's wife. A huge fight breaks out, and ends with a group led by the IRA man cutting the throat and slicing open the chest of the other man, killing him, and also severly beating and cutting a second man.

Following the fight, which many people witnessed, the IRA member and his gang went back into the bar, cleaned up all the evidence, took the CCTV video tape, and warned everyone in the bar not to talk to the police on fear of their own lives.

The fallout from this murder has been immense. The IRA and Sinn Fein each expelled several members over the incident. The dead man's five sisters and financee began a campaign to end the silence, to end the paramilitary control-by-fear, and to bring attention to the outright criminal activities of the paramilitaries.

Several IRA statements followed the murder [i'll search back and find them, but running out of time today...], including a now infamous statement describing the IRA's own internal investigation, including the offer to "shoot" the perpetrators. The McCartney family admirably rejected the offer, not wanting any blood shed in their name. The sisters travelled to the White House and met George Bush face-to-face. This was all the more significant as Gerry Adams (as well as all other NI political leaders) were snubbed for the traditional Irish ceremony on St. Patrick's Day.

We are now at the stage where no one has been charged for a murder than dozens of people witnessed, and the sisters have now received death threats to stop their campaign.

After all this, how can anyone have any Republican sympathy left?