Gov. Bill Richardson Rejects Laura Ling/Euna Lee Public Records Request

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

Comments

[ddw13]

i'm sure Mr. Bing could answer all your questions Mr. Mass's

[jhNY]

Richardson's legendary expertise on all things North Korean notwithstanding, and his office's sophisticated attempts at freezing out questions regarding his state's economic contributions to furthering that legend notwithstanding, he still found time over the weekend, as governor of one of the poorest states in the union in good times or bad, to come out against the need for a second stumilus package. Richardson may be the only Blue Dog Latino Native American with a manly beard to take this meaningful stance against poor people, which makes him lonesome, and causes him to call up reporters to decry the need for more stumulus. Such excellence cannot go unnoticed.

[Dave Maass - Huffpost Blogger]

"Richardson may be the only Blue Dog Latino Native American with a manly beard to take this meaningful stance against poor people"

Ha! (at everything except the Native American thing...I don't think he qualifies)

[Littledog]

Besides Guv R. only does things for (1) money (see pay-to-play allegations) or (2) publicity for himself.

[Dave Maass - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you!

[DanniLomo]

It is absurd and irresponsible to have such a narrow view of Richardson. I would never defend a politician who seems to be involved in maleficence but your desire to know should be tempered by the tenuous and dangerous situation these journalists find themselves in.

[JRsNana]

Negotiating these things is a very delicate thing I would think. Having the press barge in and demand information seems a little bit dangerous to me. The goal is release. Pissing off the North Koreans by putting a bunch of negative press out on the internet seems a bit counterproductive to the goal. I, for one, am more than willing to wait to hear the story after they're released.

[Dave Maass - Huffpost Blogger]

I think this is a very dangerous argument you're making. I mean, you're saying that the press should be manipulated to achieve a predetermined goal.

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.

[Pippen]

I agree there is something odd about this whole thing. I can't put my finger on it but I keep reading. My first instinct is this, almost all journalists who announce to the state department and local government office that they will be filming/ reporting from a highly dangerous military zone on the enemy are assigned a diplomatic document from an officer. In some cases they are assigned a CIA representative (covertly in some cases) to monitor the situation as it unfolds.

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.

[JRsNana]

Yes I do believe that someone should be watching. And I believe people are watching. I just don't think it needs to be out there while negotiations are ongoing. There may come a time that we do all need to get involved. I just don't think that time is now. It's early, and we should let people do their jobs. If, after they do their jobs, nothing changes, THEN I would say "you betcha" let's find out what we can do now. I don't think my argument is "dangerous". I think trying to muscle in on a sensitive situation could be way more dangerous.

[ywcachieve]

Why is Gov. Richardson negotiating with NK on behalf of these young ladies. Isn't that Hillary's job?

[Dave Maass - Huffpost Blogger]

I don't think we have any evidence that he is.

[JRsNana]

If we don't have any evidence that he's negotiating with North Korea for their release, then why did you ask his office for information on the negotiations? Am I missing something here or are you just fishing? And if you are just fishing, the question becomes: why are you fishing for this information? What difference does it make who is negotiating for their release as long as someone is doing so? Are you trying to stir something up? Keep in mind, any controversy around this matter could put these women in graver danger than they already are.

[PABookworm]

Does the Secretary of State usually conduct this type of negotiation herself (or himself -- not focusing here specifically on Hillary)? Just asking, not sure of the answer, but it seems to me it's more usual for the SoS to look to a special envoy or regional expert to handle the actual nuts-and-bolts negotiating.

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.

[Dave Maass - Huffpost Blogger]

Yeah, I'm going to agree with PABookworm to an extent. Richardson's definitely proved himself as a specialist in this kind of negotiation. That said, I'm not sure he's the one for the job here. I have a feeling this may have taken a backseat to the nuclear threat.

[PatA]

Sometimes a reporter needs to just back up and shut up. This is one of those times!

[Dave Maass - Huffpost Blogger]

That's a bit of a double standard, don't you think, considering how vocal the press has been in supporting the effort?

[PABookworm]

If I remember correctly, the comments made by Governor Richardson on the Rachel Maddow show were quite general and were derived from his past experience with the North Koreans -- it's a good sign that the reporters weren't charged with treason, negotiations can't begin until the judicial process has concluded, etc. The records you're requesting, in contrast, might well include specific information about current efforts to negotiate the reporters' release. As for expenses incurred for media appearances concerning "non-New Mexican issues," my guess is they were minimal, since it was apparent that the Governor was appearing by video link , maybe even from Santa Fe. I'm with the first two commenters on this one: let's be patient and non-intrusive, and with luck Laura LIng and Euna Lee will soon be back in the USA. After all, David Rohde is.

[Dave Maass - Huffpost Blogger]

Hey PAB -

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.

[PABookworm]

When Rachel questioned Spitzer on his prostitution scandal, had the criminal case against him been concluded? If it had, it seems to me that's an important difference between his situation and Richardson's. In a Washington Post interview that appeared several months ago, Richardson was asked about the grand jury investigation, and replied only that he wished it would not drag on so long and he was certain his administration had done nothing wrong. Given the secrecy that's supposed to surround federal grand jury proceedings, is there anything else he could be expected to say? Is it likely that he even KNOWS anything else (other than rumors) about the progress of the investigation at this point? And if he was invited to appear on Rachel's show to discuss North Korea, and an agreement was reached limiting her questions to that topic, why would that situation pose an ethical quandary?

"When I support something in spirit it makes it all that more important for me to question my own assumptions": Nice point.

[Dave Maass - Huffpost Blogger]

That doesn't 't really answer my question. Why are national media interview requests off limits?

[strangelet]

Well, I'll agree that the denial may have been overbroad. On the other hand, it is possible that -- given the notorious NK tetchiness -- the folks conducting the negotiations want to control the media overspill.

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.

[Dave Maass - Huffpost Blogger]

Overbroad yes---and while the NK are certainly touchy, I think if you look back and some of the stuff that Richardson said during the debates and during interviews makes you wonder whether he's a credible figure to be leading negotiations.

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.

[shel3364]

as long as they're negotiatingm you should probably keep your pits dry.

[mommadona]

Because he's in the MIDDLE OF IT, perhaps?

(geesh)