Chinese-American journalist Laura Ling and Korean-American journalist Euna Lee have been found guilty of “hostile acts” and illegal entry into North Korea, the BBC reports. They have been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor for committing what North Korea calls a “grave crime.”

The women were arrested in March after apparently crossing the China-North Korea border. Some believe the two, who were working on a refugee story for California-based Current TV (led by Al Gore), were arrested on China’s side of the border.

“We are deeply concerned by the reported sentencing of the two American citizen journalists by North Korean authorities, and we are engaged through all possible channels to secure their release” said a statement from the U.S. State Department.

Many believe North Korea, during this period of increased global tensions as a result of their nuclear and missile testing, are using the two women as “bargaining chips” with the United States.

What bothers me the most about this, and I’m sure the families of Euna Lee and Laura Ling, too, is the certainty that these two women didn’t and probably weren’t even able to commit a grave crime, hostile act or espionage.

They were journalists armed with nothing but cameras and the resolve to file a story for Current TV.

The sentence is more about North Korea being angry with the world because the world is angry with them. They will no doubt use the women as bargaining tokens because they know the U.S., rightfully so, would never allow two of their citizens to be prosecuted and subjected to more than a decade of “reform through labor” in a foreign, unstable nation for no solid reason.

North Korea hasn’t even specified what the supposed “grave crime” and “hostile act” is.

Why? Because the women most likely didn’t do anything grave or hostile.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is considering sending an envoy to negotiate Lee and Ling’s release over what she calls a “baseless” detention, the BBC reports.

CNN reports senior administration officials are weighing their options, currently thinking about sending former Vice President Al Gore, who leads the independent media company for which Ling and Lee work, or New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who served as ambassador to the UN during the Clinton administration, to negotiate release.

“What we would try to seek would be some kind of political pardon, some kind of a respite from the legal proceedings” said Richardson, the Taipei Times reports.

North Korea is expected to allow a visit from one of the men, according to CNN.

Humanitarian aid

What can we really offer them that won’t end up hurting us?

Humanitarian aid is perhaps a good option; North Korea is a poor nation. But they’ve routinely put the strength and welfare of their public image above that of their people, something that may again happen. Hopefully not, since they need the aid bad and have repeatedly demanded it when in situations where they have “bargaining chips.”

They closed their nuclear facilities during the six-party talks in exchange for humanitarian aid.

North Korea is‚  a strong but rusty machine, they never waver, though sometimes weakness emerges from beneath their guise of absolute strength. That weakness is their lack of money.

This isn’t just the U.S.’s problem either, it’s the world’s. It’s really North Korea that has committed the “hostile act” and “grave crime” by thinking this is OK.

We all wish for the safe return of‚  Euna Lee and Laura Ling. I can’t imagine a situation where the U.S. would allow North Korea to keep them.

You can do your part by signing the petition to Free Euna Lee and Laura Ling, or follow @liberatelaura on Twitter for all developments.

This is a statement from the Society of Professional Journalists.

INDIANAPOLIS – Leaders of the Society of Professional Journalists remain hopeful a federal shield law will pass when Congress reconvenes following the August recess, despite opposition to certain components of the bill.

SPJ leaders are bothered by opponents’ latest attempts to deter Senators’ support of this important piece of legislation. Members of the opposition include a group of former national security and law enforcement professionals who have tried to urge legislators to reject the shield law citing concerns about who would be covered by the law and specific risks to national security.

“We are advocating for the bill as it is currently written,” SPJ President Clint Brewer said. “It clearly addresses both of the oppositions’ concerns in its present state.”

In response to who constitutes a journalist under the federal shield law, the bill contains a clear definition that provides coverage for anyone who “regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports or publishes information of public interest” for dissemination to the public.

The bill also invites no risks to national security, as opponents suggest. Specifically, Section 5 states that journalists must be ordered to reveal confidential sources and documents if, by a preponderance of evidence, a federal court finds that the protected information would assist in preventing a specific case of terrorism against the United States or significant harm to national security that would outweigh the public interest in newsgathering and maintaining a free flow of information to citizens.

“National security is not something SPJ or fellow federal shield law supporters are ignoring in the effort to protect journalists’ confidential information and sources,” Brewer said. “This bill addresses the opposition’s concerns about national security. However, it would require law enforcement officials and prosecutors to exhaust all other investigative avenues before turning to journalists.

“I suspect this is the part they are opposed to, because they would no longer be able to count on journalists to do the investigative work for them.”

The Society and its leaders encourage journalists across the country to contact their senators and voice their support for the bill. Contact information can be found at Senate.gov.

To see a list of those who voted late July against bringing the bill to the Senate floor for a vote, see the roll call

A federal shield law would give journalists the right to refuse to reveal information and sources obtained during the newsgathering process with a few notable exceptions, including where national security is at issue. The qualified privilege would be similar to those afforded to lawyers and their clients, clergy and their penitents and psychotherapists and their patients. To read more about SPJ’s research and past releases about the federal shield law, visit http://spj.org/shieldlaw-stall.asp.

Founded in 1909 as Sigma Delta Chi, the Society of Professional Journalists promotes the free flow of information vital to a well-informed citizenry; works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists; and protects First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press. For further information about SPJ, please visit www.spj.org.