Will the State Dept Declare FSO Peter Van Buren Persona Non Grata For His Book on the TragicComedy of PRT Iraq?

In April, I wrote New FS Blog: We Meant Well, Plus a Book Coming Out This Fall  

In July, I wondered out loud, Peter Van Buren: Oh, dude -- WHO did you get "more than upset" at the State Department?

It's now September. Next Tuesday, the 27th, his book,“We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle For the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People” (Metropolitan Books, 2011) will hit the stores.

And a tsunami is forecast to hit Peter Van Buren at his cubicle in Foggy Bottom.

DiploPundit will try to cover the event when it happens. Although if State is smart, as it is full of smart folks, it probably should not order a tsunami on the same day that the book comes out. People might think the tsunami is intentional wrath from god.

I had the opportunity to read the book this weekend.  I'll post my review separately.  I can, however, tell you that the 267-page book carries the following notice:

The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, or any other entity of the US government. The Department of State had the chance to review this book in manuscript form before publication, as required by 3 FAM 4170.

The Department of State does not approve, endorse, or  authorize this book. With the exception of historical figures (e.g., President Bush, General Odierno), I have changed all names. The events depicted in this book are true, however, although some details have been changed and the timing of some events has been altered or obscured. Except as noted, I was present at any event reported on and at any conversation repeated.

Information from the SIGIR Web site is in the public domain and may be used without further permission, provided such use is not reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by SIGIR. SIGIR did not approve, endorse, or authorize this book.

The curious phrase, "The Department of State had the chance to review this book in manuscript form before publication, as required by 3 FAM 4170."

Which could mean a couple of things. 1) Somebody at State had reviewed this book and found it free of classified materials. Which is well and good, no tsunami will be ordered. Somebody has read the book and the Spokesman can say something like, let's see -- "We know this books is coming out. We do not agree with Mr. Van Buren's views but his views are his own. We have nothing further to say about this issue." This would be bad for the folks who want Peter Van Buren's head on a platter.

Or 2) Somebody at State forgot that the manuscript of this book was in his/her inbox and did not take action during the "reasonable period of review" indicated in the FAM "not to exceed thirty days." In which case, there are taskers now on what the Spokesman should say about the contents of the 200-something page book. And no, you can't read my copy.

I'd like to believe it is the former, but I would not be surprise if it is the latter. That said, 3 FAM 4172.1-7 on the Use or Publication of Materials Prepared in an Employee's Private Capacity That Have Been Submitted for Review appears clear enough:

"An employee may use, issue, or publish materials on matters of official concern that have been submitted for review, and for which the presumption of private capacity has not been overcome, upon expiration of the designated period of comment and review regardless of the final content of such materials so long as they do not contain information that is classified or otherwise exempt from disclosure as described in 3 FAM 4172.1-6(A)."

Because clearly, it's not like they want to gag anyone, particularly on a contentious subject like Iraq that has been sucking up the U.S. Treasury, right?

Of course, what is clear to you and me, may not always be clear to the officially-paid interpreter of regulations. Remains to be seen what happens. After all, State's cousin, the DOD back in 2010 reportedly bought some 9,500 copies of Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer's 299-page memoir "Operation Dark Heart" after its publication was green lighted by the Army Reserve Command then proceeded to burn them. Burn all the books, seriously.  So then you know, nobody could ever read that book ever again. 

Pardon me? WikiLeaks has obtained a copy of the unredacted book?  Oh, dear.  Okay, sorry, I meant to say, they have bought and burned 9,499 copies of the Colonel's book.

Peter Van Buren book carries a special acknowledgement of "Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, who led an organization I once cared deeply for into a swamp and abandoned us there."  

A visit from the new SecState in 2009 made it into the special acknowledgement page, too:

"On our last day of PRT training, the facility was put into lockdown for a visit from the new Secretary of State (it’s cool that when she visits her own staff the Secretary’s security puts us into lock-down). She greeted and congratulated the Afghan PRT class down the hall from us Iraqis, then left. We didn’t even rate a walk- on. Our war no longer really mattered, though it would take me a long year in the desert and writing this book to fully figure that out."

I understand from a couple of news interviews online that Peter Van Buren is now subject of internal investigations at the State Department.

So since it appears that Peter Van Buren went through the clearance process as required by the FAM, and if it turns out that the somebody in the higher pyramid pay-grade have not done the actual reading and clearance thingy, would that then be the author's fault? Really?

I get searches in this blog for "Who hates Peter Van Buren?" Seriously.

Apparently there is also a rumor going around in the FS community that the reason Foreign Service bloggers are having a tough time these days is, you guess it -- Peter Van Buren!

Well -- there was a 7.3 earthquake in the Fiji region four days ago, must have been Peter Van Buren's fault, too!

And that all made me think that the somebodies may have a tsunami order on speed-dial specifically for Van Buren's cubicle. Which would be very bad for Peter Van Buren, indeed, but would certainly be great for book sales.

I must add here that although I have a digital copy of the book, I am buying additional copies to send to my State Department pals for the holidays, at least those still talking to me. 

I've never meet Peter Van Buren in person but this seems like the least I could do for a public servant whose career will most certainly be over, and who will be ostracized by most folks big and small in the Big House.  If I see him down some corridor, I will not take the nearest exit or pretend to be busy with my phone thingy.  It is not hard to imagine that not too long ago, he is like all other wide-eyed newbies in A-100 hoping to change the world. Iraq has been our mess since we broke it, Peter Van Buren did not break it. I would thank him for putting his career on the line to tell these stories that the American public needs to know. Perhaps if we learn all the details, we'd demand next time that our elected representatives think harder, ask serious questions, and have the spine to have convictions before allowing our country to blunder into another war.

Any how, I'd definitely love to be wrong on this one, the tsunami and all, including the stealthy shunning.

I would also like to formally request (that is, if the tsunami doesn't get him), that they send Mr. Van Buren to Afghanistan so he can write about PRT-Afghanistan, too. I seem to be developing gastroesophageal reflux disease every time I consume something served by the US Embassy Kabul on Facebook and Prilosec is no damn help!

People Power in Tunisia: A Warning for Other "Forever" Rulers

Image via WikipediaAfter 23 years in office, Tunisia's president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali fled his country on Friday after days of mass protests in one of the Arab world's most repressive regimes.

The Guardian reported that Ben Ali, 74, had been in power since 1987. On Thursday he announced he would not stand for another presidential term in 2014, but Tunisia had been radicalised by the weeks of violence and the killings of scores of demonstrators.

Al Jazeera also reported that the prime minister,Mohammed Ghannouchi has taken over control of the government, citing chapter 56 of the Tunisian constitution as the article by which he was assuming power.

Maltese air traffic controllers have apparently told Al Jazeera that Ben Ali is bound for Paris, though the Maltese government has denied any knowledge of Ben Ali's plane having stopped in Malta after having left Tunis.

IPS News added that like many other Western-backed Arab rulers, he ruled with an iron fist, leading to massive human rights abuses, widespread corruption and lack of democracy.

"When a young street hawker named Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire in mid-December to protest unemployment and corruption in the central town Sidi Buzeid, Western capitals didn’t react. Ben Ali, it was assumed, was sure to crush the protests that followed in no time."

It did not.

Sounds awfully familiar.

Uganda's Idi Amin who came to power in 1971 was forced to flee into exile by helicopter by 1979. He died and was buried in Jeddah, Saud Arabia.

Mobutu Sese Seko who was in power in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) from 1965 was overthrown by Laurent-Désiré Kabila in 1997 (who himself was assassinated by his bodyguards in 2001). Mobuto went into exile and died in Morocco in 1997.

Ferdinand Marcos who was came to power in the Philippines in 1965 fled the country in 1986 after three days of "people power." He lived in exile in Hawaii where he died in 1989. 

Former Haitian strongman Jean-Claude Duvalier or "Baby Doc" who was handed power by his father in 1971, retired to the south of France after a popular uprising in 1986.  He reportedly lost most of his wealth with his 1993 divorce and now live in Paris.

Ethiopian dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam who came to power in 1977 ended up in Zimbabwe after his ouster in 1987. Found guilty of genocide in 2006, Ethiopia's Supreme Court in 2008 sentenced him - in absentia - to death.

Hissene Habré of Chad was in power from 1982 until he was deposed in 1990. He fled--reportedly with looted millions--to the West African nation of Senegal.  Recent news report says that Senegal has demanded that the international community donors provide 27 million euros (36 million US dollars) up front before it starts the process of trying Habré for war crimes.

We hope the news currently unfolding are giving the following "forever" rulers not just indigestion but also really scary nightmares.

• MUAMMAR AL-QADDAFI of Libya | Years in power: 41

• TEODORO OBIANG MBASOGO of Equatorial Guinea | Years in power: 31
  

• ROBERT MUGABE of Zimbabwe | Years in power: 30

• HOSNI MUBARAK of Egypt | Years in power: 29

• PAUL BIYA of Cameroon |Years in power: 28

• YOWERI MUSEVENI of Uganda |Years in power: 24

• BLAISE COMPAORÉ of Burkina Faso | Years in power: 23

• OMAR HASSAN AL-BASHIR of Sudan | Years in power: 21

• ISLAM KARIMOV of Uzbekistan | Years in power: 20

• IDRISS DÉBY of Chad | Years in power: 20

If they reform now, well, they may still get a chance to grow old and die in the countries that they loved. If they don't, a time will come soon when their people will simply decide that the game has gone on for far too long and kick them out of their countries. 

Then one day in a distant far away country, they will simply die of loneliness and heartbreak in a cold, foreign land among strangers.       

Related articles

• Thousands of vacationers evacuated from Tunisia (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Did Wikileaks Help Bring Down A Corrupt Arab Leader? (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Tunisia. People power ousts "dictator" president Ben Ali today. What will change? (politics.ie)
• Tunisia riots: US warns Middle East to reform or be overthrown (telegraph.co.uk)

State Dept IRM’s IT Consolidation Gets a Screaming "F"

Image via Wikipedia

A lot of stuff in the bureaucracy gets started that often ends up with bureaucrats working like hamsters on wheels; lots of energies expended with no forethought or real planning.  As the saying goes, it is about the journey, not the destination, a most apt description in the bureucracy.  It is about getting there but not so much about where or what "there" is.  Former Secretary Rice’s transformational diplomacy and global repositioning programs were just two of the grand wheels that generated much energy and  press ink.  But recently, the OIG released its report on IRM’s IT Consolidation efforts at the State Department.  

I almost fell off my chair when I read the report, except that I now have my seat belt on when I read reports on management reforms (oops, sorry, that's my jaded slip showing).  In the private sector, if you had no defined project requirements to measure project progress, how do you even get funding or keep your job?  How could a project like this even crawl forward when it has holes all over the place? If this were a boat, this would have sunk already before the somebodies left their 7th floor gigs! Oh, but it's not a boat, just sorta management reform flavor of the month, dudes. 

Here’s part of what the OIG said:          

On July 18, 2007, the former Secretary of State announced the decision to consolidate the Department of State’s desktop computer services and support under the Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM) within 2 years. This decision was one of a series of eight major management reforms made by the former Secretary intended to improve the Department’s information technology (IT) effectiveness. According to IRM, IT Consolidation will allow for an optimized and cost-effective IT infrastructure supporting agency missions and customer-centric services. Included in the stated goals of the IT Consolidation initiative are improving customer service, enhancing IT security, and reducing IT costs.

During recent reviews and inspections, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) became aware of frustrations from the executive offices and IT management of various bureaus regarding the implementation of the IT Consolidation Project. According to the IRM IT Consolidation Schedule, 25 bureaus and offices had consolidated their services as of October 1, 2009. Consolidation for the remaining participating bureaus and offices was intended to be completed by the fourth quarter of FY 2009; however, IRM has experienced delays attributable to bureaus’ resistance in consolidating their desktop services and to moving forward with the discussion process. IT Consolidation for the remaining nine bureaus is now expected to be completed by the second quarter of FY 2010.

The IT Consolidation Program Management Office (PMO) stated that its number one priority in pursuing IT Consolidation was customer service. However, OIG found a significant level of customer dissatisfaction among bureaus about the quality and timeliness of IT services after consolidation. OIG was unable to substantiate these claims because the Department did not maintain customer service baseline information prior to consolidation and bureaus did not have documentation to support their claims of better customer service prior to consolidation. Because of the inability to have a customer service baseline, OIG distributed customer service surveys to bureau executives, IT staff, and end users. Of more than 700 survey comments received by OIG on its survey from executive directors and users, more than 80 percent of respondents reported that they were more satisfied with the IT support provided by their respective bureau IT staff prior to consolidation.

OIG found that the Department did not have actual or comparative cost information to demonstrate whether consolidating services resulted in reduced costs for desktop support services and systems maintenance, which was one of the primary goals of the Project. The inconsistent manner in which bureaus accounted for IT services costs was one element hindering IRM’s ability to make a comparative cost analysis. The limited cost analysis performed by IRM prior to bureau consolidation and the lack of transparency between bureaus and the IT Consolidation PMO further contributed to cost data shortcomings.

As a result of these issues, the Department has not met some of its intended consolidation goals—improving customer service and reducing IT costs. For example, with the perception of poor customer service, end-users addressed service problems by using resources within their own bureaus rather than by requesting assistance from IRM. Therefore, IRM may have an inaccurate sense of bureau satisfaction with consolidation efforts, as well as an inaccurate picture of staffing requirements and IT costs, which ultimately affects the bureaus. Further, the IT Consolidation PMO cannot ensure that the consolidation effort is and remains aligned with Department goals, since there are no defined Project requirements to measure Project progress. The lack of a thorough understanding of costs by bureau officials and staff has diminished the staffs’ overall support and commitment to the IT Consolidation Project.

Holy molly guacamole!

It's not that I do not understand the need for reform.  I'm not that dumb, okay?  I do get it, I really do -- belt-tightening and all that "doing more with less" chip that has been embedded in my head since the 80's methinks. What I don't understand is how these things get done flying by the seat of the somebodies' pants.  But I see how this can happen.  Not too long ago, one new officer under pressure from his/her boss to deliver "a project" necessary for the boss' impression management strategery was once overheard saying, "I don't care if it's done right, I just want it done." It was sad; that new offficer was overseas on a first tour, barely six months and all; but a very quick learner on how things are badly done.  Multiply that by a dozen, a couple dozen, more -- there's the boss as a force multiplier, and did not even realized it!? An MHA in this corner, please! 

In any case, this IT consolidation seems like another flavor of the month management reform that has become too sour to enjoy. Perhaps it could have been avoided if somebody had the courage to say “hey, this idea is full of sh*t.” But that’s only like, well like committing career hara-kiri, and nobody does that too often in the bureaucracy. Because when you "die" in a bureaucracy, you don't necessarily get kicked out, you just get ignored in your cubicle until you, well -- dry out, crisp as autumn leaves and get swept out by the char force one night when nobody is looking.... 

"Never be the first to say that an idea is bad," is already memorialized in the bureaucrats' corridors of influence.

Only idjits do things like that, see?

And like Albert Einstein once said, "If A equals success, then the formula is  A = X + Y + Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut."    


Must admit that is charming!








Related Item:

Evaluation of the Information Technology Consolidation Project at the Department of State (AUD/IT-10-11) Feb 2010

Quickie: The Bronze Star, not an ‘atta boy’ medal

Image via Wikipedia

David Tate of The Battlefield Tourist had trouble with how the Bronze Star is handed out these days. He writes:

“Four guys see combat and 21 get the Bronze Star? The problem is the “V” device. Get rid of it. The Bronze Star is a hero’s medal; not an ‘atta boy’ medal. Stop giving it for meritorious purposes. Redefine it I say! It just sucks that there’s this whole slew of Bronze Star license plates out there that have the same meaning to the general public. It’s almost a disservice considering the average person can’t distinguish between a man who single-handedly knocked out two machine gun nests on Tarawa versus an admin clerk who served the general a great cup of joe.”

Remembering John Stewart Service

Image via Wikipedia

On June 17, fifty-two years ago today, Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363 (1957) was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the oral history collection of ADST, John Service talked about the released of the Supreme Court decision: "Anyway, this was a new day, the day of TV. Almost as soon as the Supreme Court decision was announced, TV people descended on us, both in my office and then later on out at our apartment. Fortunately, as I say, we had a statement ready."

STATEMENT OF JOHN S. SERVICE

I am thankful for the Court's decision and for our judicial system which gives each American the means to protect his rights and reputation.

For almost nineteen years I was proud to make my career in the American Foreign Service. Every chief under whom I worked and every competent and authorized review of the facts found my service useful and loyal.

In December, 1951, the world was informed that I had been summarily dismissed for "doubt of loyalty". Administrative appeal was refused, and legal action became my only recourse. Through it, the unfounded action of the Loyalty Review Board was declared illegal and expunged. The Government eventually conceded that my discharge was not based upon doubt of my loyalty or security and that its sole basis had been the illegal action of the Loyalty Review Board. Now the discharge has been declared illegal and the slate is clean.

My debt is great: to my attorney, Mr. Charles Edward Rhetts, who accepted the case of a stranger more than seven years ago and, without regard for his own interests, has since devoted his great ability to clearing my name; to the several attorneys who in association with him have contributed to this outcome; to a courageous employer who was willing to give a job to a man publicly defamed; and to hundreds of friends whose unshaken confidence supported my family and me in this long fight for vindication.

Read more in the Library of Congress Frontline Diplomacy Collection.

Video of the Week: James Nachtwey’s War Photos

Aiming his pictures at your best instincts

screen capture from ted.com

Accepting his 2007 TED Prize, war photographer James Nachtwey shows his life’s work and asks TED to help him continue telling the story with innovative, exciting uses of news photography in the digital era.

For the past three decades, James Nachtwey has devoted himself to documenting wars, conflicts and critical social issues, working in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza, Israel, Indonesia, Thailand, India, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, the Philippines, South Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, South Africa, Russia, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Romania, Brazil and the United States. Nachtwey has been a contract photographer with Time since 1984. However, when certain stories he wanted to cover -- such as Romanian orphanages and famine in Somalia -- garnered no interest from magazines, he self-financed trips there. He is known for getting up close to his subjects, or as he says, "in the same intimate space that the subjects inhabit," and he passes that sense of closeness on to the viewer. In putting himself in the middle of conflict, his intention is to record the truth, to document the struggles of humanity, and with this, to wake people up and stir them to action.

From ted.com

AFSA Constructive Dissent Awards

I just saw this announcement from AFSA. This year's AFSA awards for intellectual courage, initiative, and integrity in the context of constructive dissent will be presented to the following Foreign Service employees who demonstrated the courage to speak out and challenge the system, despite the possible consequences. The announcement says that each will receive a certificate of recognition and $2,500 for their unique actions and courage.

-- The Tex Harris Award for a Foreign Service Specialist was awarded to Barron I. Rosen, a diplomatic courier based in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Honorable mention is also given to three colleagues of Mr. Rosen: Kelli Cook, Kathleen Betso and Eileen School. Mr. Rosen spoke out against unsafe practices which impacted the duties of the couriers assigned to travel to Central American posts. Couriers were required to travel on unsafe cargo planes for up to 20 hours. The cargo company required all the couriers to sign a liability waiver. Mr. Rosen objected to this waiver which would not allow them to bring action against the company in the event of an accident or gross negligence. After considerable persistence on the part of Mr. Rosen, management cancelled the arrangement with the cargo company and the couriers now fly on commercial carriers. --The William R. Rivkin Award for a mid-level Foreign Service Officer will be presented to two separate individuals. Jeffrey S. Collins, a political officer at U.S. Embassy Ankara, and Michael C. Gonzales, Political/Economic Counselor at U.S. Embassy Addis Ababa will each receive the award. Jeffrey Collins worked hard to improve the protection of human rights in Turkey and to raise awareness of the need to reform and improve the State Departments system of human rights reporting. He challenged both the Embassy leadership and State Department officials on existing policies for meeting with human rights activists, and he made specific recommendations on how to improve the human rights reporting process. Michael Gonzales worked diligently within the proper channels to rebalance U.S. foreign policy toward Ethiopia to better advance U.S. long-term interests. He challenged the status quo to draw attention to the authoritarian policies of the Ethiopian government despite significant resistance from the State Department and Africa Bureau and succeeded in having his recommendations included in the Embassy's report to the transition team. --There were no winners this year of the Harriman Award for a junior-level officer, or the Herter Award for a senior-level officer.

Related Post: Wanted: Patron Saint for Dissenting Diplomats

Related Item: AFSA Past Award Winners

Quickie: Senior Officers and Intellectual Leadership

Excerpts from USAF Maj Gen Charles J. Dunlap Jr.'s piece in the Spring 2009 issue of the Strategic Quarterly Studies. A must read not just for officers in our military but also for those aspiring for leadership roles in our civilian agencies, including our Foreign Service:

[I]t is imperative that those of us involved in formulating and executing national security policy educate ourselves broadly about our service and our agencies, about other services, and about national security matters writ large. Advocacy is not, however, a risk-free enterprise; it is an intellectual contact sport of the first order. Leaders should expect their views to be hotly contested. In many instances the counterpoints will be expressed thoughtfully and at length—but also unsparingly. Such exchanges nevertheless can be productive, because it is often through engaging opposing perspectives that truth can emerge. [...] The reality for senior officers is that their advocacy puts more than just the individual officer at risk. It is the family, as well as all of those within the organization who are looking to that person for leadership and mentorship, who will likely suffer if a penalty is to be paid. For all the well-intentioned rhetoric about encouraging “out of the box” thinking, it is naive to believe that the “system” necessarily protects innovators or intellectual iconoclasts. Being “right” is no insurance policy either.²⁶ In the real world, happy endings are not guaranteed. In his speech to the Air War College in the spring of 2008, Secretary Gates was candid about this truth.27 Using the legendary Air Force reformer Col John Boyd as a “historical exemplar,” the secretary eulogized Boyd’s contributions to airpower thinking while recognizing that he was “a brilliant, eccentric, and stubborn character” who engendered much resistance in the Air Force’s bureaucracy. [...] Leaders need to lead. In the case of generals especially, that sometimes means speaking and writing about doctrines which they find ill-serve the Nation by failing to fully utilize the capabilities of the whole joint team. [...] Why do I feel so strongly about this? In my nearly years of service I’ve experienced some terrible things—I can still recall, for example, the stench of rotting corpses in Somalia. Yet the most heartbreaking scene I’ve personally witnessed was at the Dover AFB mortuary. To see the bodies of young American Soldiers neatly laid out in their dress uniforms—but forever to be silent—is something that will haunt me forever. Do not we—all of us—owe such heroes our level best to try to find a better way?

The Contact Sport Senior Leaders Must Play (pdf) Maj Gen Charles J. Dunlap Jr., USAF Excerpted from Strategic Quarterly Studies

Quote: I'm actually a bad man who happens to have a limit...

“I’m actually a bad man who happens to have a limit beyond which I wouldn’t go,” [he says]. “The strange thing is that a lot of people who are very good men — who have never been unfaithful to their wives, always go to bed by ten and even go to church — didn’t have any trouble with the torture bit. That’s the thing I really don’t get.”

Craig Murray Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan (August 2002 - October 2004) Quoted in The Sunday Times, September 21, 2008 “Craig Murray on sex, murder and intrigue”

Tomas Perez: Diplomatic Courier Honored for Heroism

Foreign Affairs Day seems like an appropriate day to remember not just retirees who are back at the State Department for the annual homecoming event, but also current employees who have done more than what is asked of them. One of them is Tomas “Andy” Perez, a diplomatic courier who was honored this past February with the State Department’s Award for Heroism.

As a Diplomatic Courier, Perez routinely accompanies classified diplomatic pouches in support of the U.S. Department of State’s mission, ensuring that equipment and materials arrive securely at diplomatic posts. However, on May 25, 2008, the job was anything but routine.

That morning Perez was strapped into the jump seat of a Kalitta 747-200 cargo aircraft, traveling with a four-member crew from Brussels. As the aircraft began takeoff, Perez and the crew heard a loud noise. The pilot aborted liftoff and tried to stop the aircraft, but, as the landing gear failed, the airplane skipped the runway and plunged into a field. The crash caused the fuselage to break apart. The aircraft’s nose section, which included the cockpit holding Perez and the four crew members, broke off from the rest of the plane and dropped to the ground, stopping just 26 feet from high power lines and railroad tracks.

Despite sustaining injuries, Perez jumped into action to help the others on board. In the chaos, the air filling with the smell of jet fuel, and two of the escape hatches damaged by the crash and rendered unusable, Perez was able to locate a working hatch, open it, and lead the crew to safety. However, the group then faced a steep, dangerous descent, and the crew was understandably hesitant to jump from the plane. Perez again led the way, demonstrating how to use the escape slide to slow their steep descent and land safely.

Once the crew was safely on the ground, Perez attended to the injured and quickly alerted authorities at the Department about the accident and his need for support. Never forgetting his duty as a Diplomatic Courier, Perez refused to leave the site for medical treatment so that he could maintain surveillance of the diplomatic pouches—enough material to fill an 18-wheeler truck. Crews from U.S. Embassies around the world flew in to take shifts guarding the cargo continuously for eight days while HAZMAT personnel cleared the leaking jet fuel and investigators combed the crash site.

For his valor under life-threatening conditions, Perez was presented with the Department of State’s Award for Heroism. In a ceremony on February 17, 2009 at the U.S. Department of State’s Annex in Rosslyn, Virginia, Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell presented Perez with a medal set and a certificate signed by the Secretary.

Perez became a Diplomatic Courier in 2005 and worked in the Washington, D.C. office. He began working in the Frankfurt Regional Diplomatic Courier Division in September 2008. The presentation of the Award for Heroism is not the first time the U.S. Department of State has honored Perez. In 2007, he received the Meritorious Honor Award for outstanding efforts in office modernization and dedication to the mission of the U.S. Diplomatic Courier Service. Prior to coming to State, Perez served in the United States Army for eight years; he was a Russian linguist, and he received two Army Achievement medals.

Torturing Democracy: How Did We Get to This Place?

The video is 90 minutes divided into three segments: Part 1: From 9/11 to Waterboarding - The Inside Story; Part 2: From the CIA to Guantanamo and Part 3: Immunity of US Officials. It is painful to watch -- about what has been done in our name, the American People -- I thought it's worth 90 minutes of my life to watch it. You can watch the videos here; the annotated transcript in pdf format is here. Quick excerpt below:

NARRATOR: In other words, the President has the power to suspend - or simply ignore - the fundamental laws of war. That includes Geneva and its guarantees of basic human rights to prisoners and civilians alike.

RICHARD ARMITAGE – Deputy Secretary of State (2001-05): Our views were well known in this matter. We were not on board.

NARRATOR: Richard Armitage served three combat tours in Vietnam.

RICHARD ARMITAGE: For the most part, the Department of State was left out of this discussion, I think precisely because we'd have no part of it.

NARRATOR: The State Department’s top lawyer called John Yoo’s legal reasoning “seriously flawed” 39 - and warned that if heading to the dark side meant violating Geneva:

“This raises a risk of future criminal prosecution for US civilian and military leadership and their advisers, by other parties to the Geneva Conventions.” 40

NARRATOR: That is, if officials - including President Bush – were accused of torture or inhumane treatment, they could be prosecuted for war crimes.

40 “Your Draft Memorandum of January 9th.” Taft, William H. IV. January 11, 2002.

The conclusion that the Geneva Conventions do not apply could be the basis for actions that otherwise would violate the Convention, including conduct that would constitute a grave breech. This raises a risk of future criminal prosecution for U.S. civilian and military leadership and their advisers, by other parties to the Geneva Conventions.

The draft memo sent to the State Department's Legal Office was dated Jan 9, 2002. A 40-page draft memo responding to Yoo at DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel was sent back two days later by State's Legal Adviser William Taft IV, saying that “both the most important factual assumptions on which your draft is based and its legal analysis are seriously flawed.” More here.

Two principals from the State Department are included in the video. Richard Armitage who was Deputy Secretary of State under Secretary Powell had a lot more to say in his extended interview here. The interview of Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Secretary Powell's Chief of Staff is here. When I hear about a "Truth Commission" or something similar being talked about, my initial reaction has been -- just let it be. I'm sure I am not the only one who feels that we need to turn a page. Like many others I think that it is important to look forward and not backwards, and yes, it is important to remind ourselves that we live in dangerous times and that there are real security threats out there. But I must admit that after watching this entire video and reading the related documents and interviews, I can't say that we should just ditch the idea of a commission. The narrative that what happened here was the work of a few "bad apples" has now moved into the realm of fiction. We teach our children that actions have consequences, but in this case -- what are the consequences? When you come to think of it, there is another reason why we need to look at how we came to this place -- we need to, because this happened in Washington after all, and Washington insiders never really go away. Mr. Rumsfeld was SecDef in 1975 and came back to the same job in 2001. Mr. Cheney was WH Chief of Staff in 1975 and came back many different times. We are now seeing former Clinton staffers come back to serve in the new administration. How many Yoos, Gonzaleses and Addingtons are out there, waiting in the wings for repeat engagements in 2012, 2016, or 2020 and beyond? Folks in their forties now, may still show up inside the beltway in the next 30 some years down the road --- because they never really go away. I think we need to know how we got to this place; we don't want to be asking the same question 20-30 years from now: how did we get here? But will Congress find its spine to look hard -- not just at what happened but also at what they had failed to do? Foreign courts should not have to render judgment on our mess ... isn't that what we do to third world countries and their dictators? The larger question becomes -- ought we not, as the bright shining city upon a hill, shine some light on this darkness in our national soul?

Insider Quote: Why Didn't You Quit?

"Fault Lines" host Avi Lewis pressed Armitage about remaining in the administration. "So when you knew that the administration of which you were a part was departing from the Geneva Conventions and sidelining them, why didn't you quit?"

"In hindsight maybe I should've," said Armitage. "But in those positions you see how many more battles you have. You maybe fool yourself. You say how much worse would X, Y, or Z be if I weren't here trying to do it? So torture is a matter of principle as far as I'm concerned. I hope, had I known about it at the time I was serving, I would've had the courage to resign."

Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State (2001-2005) Quoted in Al Jazeera Interview (will air at 2:00 a.m. eastern time April 16th)