Open Journalism NorthWet

COMMENT:

A friend who is more liberal than I pointed out that, after the Jim Brady affair, had the National Rifle Assocation (USA) become the champion of firearms safety and sought to ensure that, just as in Switzerland or Israel, every able-bodied American was capable of handling small arms safely and competently, they would have succeeded in pulling the teeth of the anti-gun establishment in the American congress. They instead dug in their heels and averred that any attempt to regulate was an attempt to eliminate as a public face, which only made things worse.

The NRA has enjoyed seven years of GOP-dominated federal government. By all indications, this is about to change. My friend posits that now would be a Good Time for the NRA to get on the safety bandwagon, to catch the boat they missed two administrations ago. While it may well be true that many Democrats would like nothing better than to whittle away at the Second Amendment until it vanishes into the night, a measured voice of reason carefully applied has the potential to render this effort untenable. Whether such a voice is forthcoming remains to be seen.

A United States federal grand jury has issued a subpoena against Jim Risen, the New York Times journalist whose research for his book, State of War, broke the story about warrantless wiretapping of the American telephone system. In a New York Times article dated February 1, 2008, Risen's lawyer is cited as saying the subpoena sought the identity of the confidential source claiming that the United States CIA attempted unsuccessfully to penetrate Iran's nuclear program beginning in the Clinton administration.

The book was published in 2006, as was the Pulitzer prize-winning article by Rizen and his Times colleague Eric Lichtblau breaking the story of the wiretaps. The subpoena comes at a time when the fate of further such wiretaps, and communications companies' immunity for same, hangs in the balance in the United States Senate.

Much more information, backstory, and links can be found in Glenn Greenwald's Salon column on the subject. Your correspondent felt it important not to waste keystrokes getting this news out.

If jailed, Risen will be the second prominent American journalist to suffer that fate during the current administration; the other, Judy Miller, spent nearly three months in federal detention during the height of the Valerie Plame affair, and eventually exposed her source.

This was first reported last week, and promptly got buried. Your correspondent things it needs to be unearthed again, if for no other reason to subject it to the crucible of debate, "in order to form a more perfect Union," as it were.

The Lakota nation has seceded from the United States. According to this article, they've been planning to do so since 1974. They have written an outline for a constitution, based in Lakota spirituality. The form of government is quasi-parlimentary; there is to be a house of chiefs and headmen, and a house of commons. The executive committee is to be formed from four of the former, and three of the latter.

I will note that neither article quotes any US government official. No word as to whether said government officials had any trouble with sand in their hair the next day.

Many, many more links here, which is where I was originally pointed at the story.

(For those who are wondering and haven't clicked on the constitution link above, "Wolakota" is the Lakota way of life, which is a spiritual path. The Lakota are colloquially known as Sioux; your correspondent tends towards calling people what they call themselves, modulo linguistic difficulties.)

I suppose a word about myself is in order.

I am an American, though not so proudly as some; I believe in the principles upon which this nation was founded, but not so much in the leadership with which We The People have ended up. Some of these views are controversial.

I am, currently, an amateur, in that I do not get paid for doing this. But I pledge, here and now, to try to the best of my ability to keep my writings here as professional as possible. Some would say that should go without saying; I've come to recognize that words are important. Indeed, words are all that stand between ourselves and bloodshed, slavery, or both. So I shall endeavour (and there I go again, spelling like a Brit... but I hope my audience becomes international, so I shall let that stand) to use words carefully.

I hope to keep this as transparent as possible. Classical journalism rails against the anonymous source; modern journalism uses it... perhaps far too much. Some would say that without their use much news would go unreported, or unsupported. Others say it damages accountability. Which accountability is perhaps the highest responsibility a journalist has.

So I propose to make this an Open Journal, to let you see at least some of the hard calls I have to make, and to even participate in them as ethics allows. I will not reveal a source that does not want to be revealed without good reason.... but I am willing to listen to the wisdom of others as to the reasons I should use. "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow,'' quoth Eric Raymond, what he calls "Linus' Law." I think the same can be said of most problems. Certainly the twin causes of freedom of the press, and the exercise thereof, are susceptible to this.

Or, at least, we shall find out.

Onward!