More than two weeks ago, I filed a public records request with Gov. Bill Richardson's office with the purpose of investigating the extent to which Richardson has been involved in negotiations with North Korea regarding journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee. The video journalists are imprisoned in North Korea and facing 12 years of hard labor on charges of illegal entry and unspecified "hostile acts."
The reason for the request: For all the speculation that Richardson might be tapped to negotiate their release, they could just be rumors or political exaggeration. Plus, after the NY Times' blackout of coverage of David Rohde's kidnapping, it's important for the press to watchdog itself.
In addition, I requested all documents and e-mails related to interviews with the national media on the issue. The reason: We wanted to ascertain to what extent taxpayer resources were used to facilitate media appearances on non-New Mexican issues.
The Governor's office flatly rejected the entire public records request. Here is the text of the text of the letter (and here's the pdf).
Dear Mr. Maass:
I write in response to your Inspection of Public Records Request dated June 30, 2009. In that request, you asked for "all emails, letters and other correspondence regarding journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling, including requests from national media to comment on the journalists."
We are unable to provide records to you at this time based on the countervailing public policy exception. The documents you requested to inspect are related to an on-going and very sensitive international matter. Disclosure at this time could possibly jeopardize continued diplomatic efforts to secure the safe release of the two journalists.
Sincerely
Marcie Maestas
Records Custodian
I understand the argument for confidentiality to ensure the journalists' safety -- but will someone explain to me: a) Why is it OK for him to speculate about it publicly on Rachel Maddow if it's so sensitive? and b) Why is it crucial that his correspondence with the media remain confidential?
Crossposted at SFReeper.com.
Follow Dave Maass on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davemaass
Ha! (at everything except the Native American thing...I don't think he qualifies)
You're also assuming they will be released. If they're still there ten years from now, does the denial of access still hold? Also, if these journalists are pawns in a larger nuclear war game, shouldn't somebody be watching to make sure they're not sacrificed?
There's a lot of things that can be going on in the dark.
Why in hell would anyone from state green light this report in the lackadaisey security it held? I smell politics and it stinks. Now to find the source.
And if Richardson IS negotiating, or will be asked to negotiate, issues involving the two reporters, it's because he is something of an expert on negotiating with North Korea. He's been there five or six times, negotiating hostage releases and nuclear issues (the latter, even under the Bush administration), and a North Korean delegation once traveled to Santa Fe to talk with him. He's also negotiated the release of hostages held by Iraq, Sudan, and Cuba. I think Hillary's doing a good job as SoS, but she can't match a record like that.
Thanks for the response. I do understand that the documents could contain current negotiation documentation, and I'm personally OK letting it go to an extent. That DOES NOT mean I shouldn't ask. I do side with the journalists -- but it's my position that when I support something in spirit it makes it all that more important for me to question my own assumptions.
As far as the Rachel Maddow show goes, you may recall that at the time (and currently) Richardson's office was being investigated by a federal grand jury in a pay-to-play scandal. When Spitzer appeared on the Rachel Maddow to discuss financial fraud, Rachel hit him with questions about his prostitution scandal. My question is, why didn't Maddow question Richardson on the pay-to-play issue. One reason to request the documents is that I'm curious to know whether this was part of the interview negotiations, whether the Maddow show agreed that was off limits. In that case, we're talking an ethic quandary.
And on the non-New Mexican issues....Richardson has made in the last year ignored many, many local media requests---to an extent locked himself in a bunker on everything from his use of pocket vetoes to his position on gay rights---but made himself perfect available on a drop of a hat to the national media.
"When I support something in spirit it makes it all that more important for me to question my own assumptions": Nice point.
Determining "to what extent taxpayer resources were used to facilitate media appearances on non-New Mexican issues" is not really a time-critical matter at this point. If you re-request the information after the issue is resolved, and still get denied, then I'd agree you have cause to be upset.
And--if he's in the middle of negotiations--then why is he visiting Hollywood so often?
Further, about my own credibility-- Ms Ling's sister has been very very vocal in the press and it i's only ethical (no matter how much personally I'd rather not) to give some coverage to possible criticism. This is evident in my previous piece about a national prisoner advocate slamming the media for its coverage so far compared to its coverage of the US prison system.
(geesh)