Saturday, January 20, 2018
My son, a retired military officer, asked if I had read a ‘small’ book by Elbert Hubbard called “A Message to Garcia.” He loaned me a copy (originally published in 1899) and stated that said book had been reprinted more times than any other book – with the possible exception of the Bible.
Well, that intrigued me because to the best of my recollection I had not only never read it, but also had not heard of it. The book is about Lieutenant Andrew Rowan (1857 – 1943) and a dangerous mission he was given by President William McKinley (during the Spanish American War) to deliver a critical message to General Calixto Garcia, a leader of the guerilla fighters in Cuba that were friendly to the United States.
I did some research; and it is true that the book has been reprinted tens-of-thousands of times, perhaps millions. The account of Lieutenant Rowan’s military accomplishment in the book was somewhat less than accurate, but his efforts reportedly were courageous nonetheless. Such is the genesis of legend.
I read the book three times to insure that I understood the book's meaning, its ‘message.’ That didn’t take long. As noted above, it was a small book.
The copy loaned to me had a section titled “Publisher’s Note,” and another section titled “Apologia” which was written by Hubbard and in which he explained how he came to write “A Message to Garcia.” Both sections were important from a contextual perspective.
The actual physical ‘message’ or communique delivered by Rowan, if known, is not particularly relative. The manner in which Rowan delivered the ‘message’ was the story. However, if you’re looking for a detailed account of how Lieutenant Rowan surreptitiously entered Cuba, how he navigated the rugged Cuban mountains, evaded capture by the enemy and ultimately located General Garcia, you will be disappointed.
The book is, to sum up, about ‘grit’ or in other words, strength of character. The story reflects the stoic manner in which Lieutenant Rowan accepted the dangerous mission, reportedly without reservations or question.
And then, Hubbard goes on to expand the theme for the potential benefit of each us – whether our superiors / employers are in the military or industry - or the neighborhood grocery.
"I know one man of really brilliant parts who has not the ability to manage a business of his own, and yet is absolutely worthless to anyone else, because he carries with him constantly the insane suspicion that his employer is oppressing him or intending to oppress him. He cannot give orders, and will not receive them. Should a message be given him to take to Garcia, his answer would probably be, Take it yourself!"
Monday, January 8, 2018
The Motion Picture ‘THE POST’ starring Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep. I don’t plan to see it. My thoughts.
There seems to be a lot of generated buzz about the new motion picture, ‘The Post.’ I do like Tom Hanks in almost anything he does, but I just don’t think so – not this time. I’ll save my nine or ten bucks.
The movie is about, what has come to be called, the Pentagon Papers. This story was exploding about the time I was becoming a new FBI Agent – 1971. I had just left military service.
Even the premise for the movie, whether or not the New York Post should publish top secret classified documents misappropriated (stolen) by Daniel Ellsberg (a Vietnam anti-war activist) in their newspaper, is less than factual. The story regarding the Pentagon Papers was originally published in the New York Times and the New York Times received a Pulitzer Prize for their journalistic efforts.
What were the Pentagon Papers about? In summary, it documented how the U.S. government, under various Presidents (Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon) lied to the American people about motives for the war, military conditions relevant to the war to include personnel losses and mission miscalculations.
Is this a movie review? No. That would require me seeing the movie.
I just want to say that said movie is apparently one more creative effort to make a considerable profit; as well as to minimize (perhaps unintentionally), the sacrifices made by our military.
If you watched Ken Burns’ ‘Vietnam’ on PBS, you’ve pretty much heard the whole story. Yes, many in the military died in vain. Yes, the government lied to all of us; and many American soldiers, as well as innumerable Vietnamese; died needlessly. But this does not in any way diminish the courage, sacrifice, honor and bravery of our military personnel who were killed or suffered grievous injuries. Let’s all remember that. Does the motion picture community still have to make more money off of this?
Moreover, I don’t particularly want to have to hear how courageous the management at the Washington Post were back then - as depicted by Hanks and Streep. For ‘gosh sakes,’ the story had already been in the New York Times.
Cliff Hanger: Will the Post be sued? Will they have to go to jail? Nope. Now you know the ending. The movie is simply contrived nonsense.
Friday, December 15, 2017
You know what really gets me is the media continually going on and on about the Russian interference in our Presidential election; but they never seem to mention precisely how the Russians interfered. As an investigator, I always look for the elements of the crime; elements that can be clearly articulated. I try to pay attention to the media, but it’s like clarity isn’t an issue for them – ‘just take our word for it, it happened.’
Well, I tried to research it. And, the best I could find was:
- ‘The cyber-theft of private data.’ Not clear what this was, or who was involved. Perhaps, they are referring to the DNC breach (Democratic National Committee).
- ‘The placement of propaganda against particular candidates.’ Not clear here, at least not spelled out. I suppose they are talking about Hillary Clinton I guess – but what propaganda are they referring to, and anyway Hillary was her own worst enemy in placing classified information on her private server, etc.; which we all know now was a crime – to which her best defense was ignorance. Yes, right.
- ‘Russians placed fake news on social media.’ Well, they certainly are not the only ones; and exactly how stupid do the Russians think we are?
- ‘Russians attempted to get into computer systems of local elections officials around the country.’ Apparently, they were unsuccessful in affecting the voting, but nonetheless not good. Bad Russians.
That said, isn’t it a given that the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Iranians et al are trying to hack our governmental and industrial systems? Is not it our responsibility to adequately protect this information? And, does not our CIA do the same in targeting those countries? We’re not that naïve are we? Really?
This reminds me of that old Wendy’s commercial (1984). You might remember it. This older woman walks into a fast food joint, something called ‘Big Bun Burger.’ She was served this giant bun, looks inside and loudly proclaims: “Where’s the beef?”
Isn’t this what we are being fed by the media – a giant bun? Isn’t this what we should ask ourselves every time the media brings up ‘Russian interference?’ Where’s the beef?
Incidentally, the older lady that used that Wendy’s catchphrase so effectively was Clara Peller (1902-1987), manicurist and sometimes actor.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Juliette Simmons, victim of brutal rape, apparently receives little (if any) timely justice at the hands of Law Enforcement
Article in The Oregonian, Sunday, December 3, 2017: A Neglected Victim, a Voice of Moral Outrage.
Based on what I’ve read, rape victim (Juliette Simmons) has been largely ignored for months by the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office as well as the Clackamas County District Attorney – who apparently can’t put together a forcible rape case without the DNA evidence.
Hopefully, The Oregonian article is not entirely accurate and/or complete. The article was authored by the newspaper’s Editorial Board. The Editorial Board was primarily, it would appear, trying to make the point that the Oregon State Police Lab is desperately understaffed, and that DNA tests often take months or even years to be completed. Therefore, the article might be slanted in such a way to critique the inefficiency of the Lab – rather than evaluate or explain all aspects of the Simmons’ case. Nonetheless, the article makes our county and state law enforcement look pretty bad – certainly gives them a ‘black eye.’
Ms. Simmons was reportedly ‘drugged, choked, raped and urinated on’ by someone she knows and who she immediately identified to law enforcement. But it would appear that the Sheriff’s Office has done very little since the rape – which occurred many months back. The Oregon State Police Laboratory is allegedly to blame due to their failure to conduct a timely DNA analysis.
I would like to remind everyone that it was not too many years back when crimes, particularly rape cases, were adequately investigated and prosecuted without DNA evidence; a technology that had not yet evolved.
Has the suspect been arrested? Apparently not. Why not?
Was the suspect immediately interviewed / interrogated in a formal environment? Did he deny the crime? Did he implicate himself? Did he deny having intercourse with the victim? Was evidence (clothing, urine, etc.) collected from him and/or a search warrant issued without delay? Was there not probable cause to charge him?
Were blood tests conducted on the rape victim to ascertain whether or not she had been drugged?
Did her medical exam reflect that she had been forcibly penetrated?
Were her clothes collected, analyzed and held as evidence in a future trial.
Did the suspect have a record of similar crimes? And, is he currently dangerous to public?
Has the Sheriff’s Office kept the victim apprised on a regular basis of the case’s standing? Doesn't sound like it.
DNA evidence is a wonderful tool for law enforcement, often making a somewhat sketchy case a ‘slam dunk.’ However, that does not mean that law enforcement doesn’t have to work the case, even potentially solve the case, without the DNA analysis (which, even with DNA, does not necessarily guarantee an automatic conviction.)
Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office: What do you have to say? Will you let the article stand unchallenged?
As they say: Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
Thursday, November 9, 2017
Just for the sake of identifying my topic, I will use his name (Devin Kelley). I wish I had never heard it. His very existence is an abomination, and an enduring stain on his family and anyone who ever called him friend. Thankfully, he is dead.
I’ve written many times on my blog about ‘gun control’ and my feelings regarding same. I feel that most who offer opinions on how to prevent incidents like what took place in Sutherland Springs, Texas are well meaning, but largely uninformed.
There are, of course, numerous elements in our society believed to have contributed to the nurturing and development of someone like a Devin Kelley. You have heard them before. Blame is ubiquitous in our society: the media, gun control, lack of mental health services, traumatic childhood, violent movies and video games; even one might blame less than adequate law enforcement.
Nonetheless, based on my past career experience in federal law enforcement (FBI); local law enforcement (Sheriff’s Office); as a corporate security manager with a Fortune 100 company; and as a private investigator, I will put forth my opinion - my proposed solution - not a cure all, but an important step.
This country needs a 'national hotline.' A place where citizens can anonymously report perceived or potential criminality and potentially dangerous individuals. I propose that this ‘hotline’ be a division within the Department of Homeland Security and be staffed by properly trained operators available on a 24 hour basis. This concept is quite commonly used in large corporations. It could be implemented on a nationwide level.
How many times have you heard the incredibly clichéd, entirely useless comment? “If you see something, tell someone.” And who might that be: The FBI? The Bureau would probably cut you off before you got two sentences out – with the comment “contact your local police.” The local police? Good luck with that. Overworked, chances are they would immediately write you off as a ‘nut,’ and attempt to placate you with: “We’ll look into it.”
Listen, I’ve had a lot of experience dealing with all levels of law enforcement and if someone were to ask me: “Who should I call?” I would tell them that I have no good suggestions. I mean you can try, but 99% of the time it will fall on deaf ears.
Probably the best way to report information is to write it up in some detail and mail it, return receipt requested. Of course, you would not be anonymous – you’re walking out on a limb; but it kind of puts the locals or the Feds on the spot to take it somewhat seriously. And, it should be understood that you expose yourself to possible danger (if the subject of your tip finds out) or a law suit (if you caused an innocent person to be placed under undue suspicion or actually caused them harm.)
That said, how will this national hotline work? Well, the operators receiving calls (or it could be information anonymously received via email or regular post) would have to be extensively trained to sift through incoming information. The FBI has made significant strides in ‘profiling’ and would necessarily be involved in the training process. This would be the first line of analysis or filtration.
The subsequent step would involve a national record check to include all federal and state crimes as well as civil matters such as ‘restraining orders.’
Then social media would be searched. There is information via the net on almost everyone at this point – as we all know or at least should know. Why not use it?
And finally, any information evaluated as credible would be turned over to the FBI, or in some instances local law enforcement agencies, for follow-up. Crank calls or repeat crank callers could be identified and filtered out through a data base. Repeat offenders could be prosecuted in the same manner that bomb threats are evaluated and prosecuted.
The FBI would perhaps require some expanded authority or additional personnel to handle credible information regarding aggravated situations or threats.
We have all this technology available. All this information available. Why not use it to prevent some of these tragic incidents?
Would it or could it have prevented the Las Vegas shooting? I don’t know. It might have.
Would it or could it have prevented the shooting in Sutherland Springs? Almost certainly.
Would it or could it constitute an invasion of public privacy? No.
Almost all of the potential information sources set forth above are now available to any good private investigator. I can attest to that.
Some might say that the process would be overwhelming to available resources. I do not agree. Large companies with thousands of employees use ‘hot lines.’ They are not overwhelmed. Generally large companies ‘outsource’ or contract for those services which would probably not be compatible with a government program. However, if the government was serious, it could be done. And, it would be undoubtedly productive.
Sunday, October 22, 2017
I don’t know if you saw the picture of Harvey Weinstein on the cover of Time Magazine’s October 23rd issue - worse than the one depicted at right. Maybe, Time Magazine's was just an especially bad picture. Maybe, Harvey is not particularly photogenic. Perhaps it was the lighting. Let's hope so. Most women's worst nightmare - considering the alleged circumstances.
Anyway, I do have a suggestion for Mr. Weinstein. It kind of reminds me of the downfall and disgrace of one of Oregon’s premier politicians, Neil Goldschmidt. So... Harvey, how about taking your money and moving to France?
Goldschmidt was the Mayor of Portland, U.S. Secretary of Transportation in the Carter Administration, and was elected the 33rd Governor of Oregon in 1986.
Goldschmidt was accused of (and he subsequently admitted in a rationalized sort of way) having an “affair,” as he described it, with a 13 year old girl – a friend of the family – which extended over several years. Many prominent people, including the future Sheriff of Multnomah County (Bernie Giusto) knew of the abuse early on.
Furthermore, the abuse by Goldschmidt was reportedly well known in political circles. But, you understand, Goldschmidt was a ‘high roller,’ ‘a rising star’ and it just made sense for many to keep their mouths shut to protect their careers.
Neil’s ‘indiscretion,’ all came out in the end, documented in articles in the Willamette Week newspaper – a local weekly publication.
Nigel Jaquis, a Willamette Week reporter, based on rumors, followed up on the story years later; and subsequently won a Pulitzer Prize for ‘investigative journalism.’ This was several years after the abuse had ended. And, Elizabeth (the victim) at that point, well into adulthood, cooperated with the reporter. She advised that Goldschmidt had paid her money to keep quiet. She named people who knew. Everything unraveled.
Sadly, Elizabeth later drifted into alcohol and drug abuse and died at a young age. The ‘statute of limitations’ protected Goldschmidt from prosecution.
I understand Goldschmidt (maybe I’m wrong) moved to France and established a residence there. Now in his late 70’s, he is financially well off and basically keeping a low profile.
The bottom line is that there is nothing particularly new in Harvey Weinstein’s situation (that's Hollywood); and this could also be said about politics. Does anyone remember William Jefferson Clinton?
Could it be that a principal, inexcusable wrong was that those other than the immediate victims, accessories so to speak, kept quiet to protect their own butts?
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
I’m very disappointed that professional and other athletes feel they can and will make a ‘political statement’ by dishonoring the flag; and choosing to ‘take a knee’ during the playing of the National Anthem and the raising of the American flag.
I was wondering if any of these athletes, many of whom are African Americans, have ever read anything about the Civil War – the war to preserve the Union and to free the slaves. If so, did they happen to note and perhaps think about the Union flag bearers, often unarmed, who were given the ‘great honor’ of carrying the American flag during an attack, knowing they would face almost certain death?
The flag bearers at the front of the assault were a principal target for the Confederate soldiers. When one of the Union flag bearers was mortally wounded another soldier would grab the flag before it hit the ground, carry it high until he too was shot; and then another and another.
Moreover, regiments, made up mostly of African Americans and former slaves, played a significant role in the defeat of the Confederate Army. They too charged into a rain of enemy fire proudly carrying the American flag.
What would they think of us now?
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Charlottesville, Virginia Violence & Law Enforcement's Ineffective Response / Confederate Monuments - what next?
I’m not sure that I have a vested interest in the current turmoil in Charlottesville, Virginia and the follow-up movements for the destruction of any monuments, plaques– any reference really – associated with the Confederate Army. I live in the West where to my knowledge the Civil War and those who fought in that war are not given a whole lot of thought unless you have a particular interest in the history of the Civil War – the outcome, the unimaginable suffering and the courage by both the Southern and Northern soldiers.
Now, it appears that serious (I suppose) individuals are advocating the same destructive treatment to historical memorials dedicated to anyone who owned slaves - including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Regardless of the great contributions to our country by individuals such as Washington and Jefferson – it now seems they must be historically diminished and/or forgotten – due to their slave ownership.
I’d just like to make a couple of comments. I don’t usually buy-into conspiracy theories; but I think the current uproar, demonstrations (and yes violence) on both sides is not entirely spontaneous. There are organizing factions pushing this; and it is dividing the country. There doesn’t seem to be any middle ground for those willing to compromise. So who is pushing this and why?
Well, of course – as usual – it's those with something to gain. The ‘usual suspects’ come to mind: manipulative politicians and wealthy people in the position to make even more money, as well as organizations that profit from donations – no matter how unworthy those organizations might be. And, to my mind, there is a faction that has the sole purpose of destroying or greatly weakening the Constitution and the rights guaranteed therein. How often have we heard liberal judges opining that the U.S. Constitution is a ‘living document’ and needs to be interpreted / changed as time passes and as they (judges) feel appropriate? That said…
Here are some facts:
- Most Confederate soldiers never owned slaves. They were forced to leave their families and farms to fight a war that was purportedly about States' Rights (a concept few common soldiers understood).
- Tens of thousands of Union soldiers died to preserve the Union and to free the slaves.
- Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.
- Appomattox 1865: General Grant could have had Robert E. Lee hanged – and General Lee anticipated that would happen. But Grant was wise enough to let the Southern soldiers return home with a horse (if they owned one), a rifle for hunting; and, more importantly, with a modicum of pride.
- In our present day, great strides have been made – such as affirmative action – to right wrongs and discrimination against African Americans, discrimination that continued well into the 1970s. The treatment Blacks received was shameful. However, isn’t it interesting that most of the discrimination and bad treatment of African Americans was at the hands of Democrats in the South. Now, they (present day Democrats) would like us to believe that they are pure of heart and without blame; but it is they that perpetuated the worst forms of discrimination well after the Civil War was over. So, if I might, lets just speculate that modern-day Democratic politicians see the latest controversy over the Civil War memorials and those who owned slaves in the distant past as a way to regain, cement, lockup, the political support from the Black community. And, it seems to be working.
- No American, living today, was ever a slave - or ever owned a slave.
- Historically, many other nationalities were once enslaved, in the United States, as indentured servants.
- The FBI has had entire squads working White Extremist matters for decades; and almost certainly they have developed informants within the current ‘hate groups.’ Neo-Nazis have no place in American society.
Finally, the local law enforcement response to the brawling and rioting which occurred in Charlottesville was disgraceful. Law enforcement seemed to merely standby as those two groups went at it with clubs.
Local law enforcement’s ineffective actions to take charge, including failure to use crowd dispersal techniques such as ‘tear gas,’ must share some responsibility for the violence, injuries and the death (Heather Heyer, age 32). Law enforcement and City officials are trying to spin it otherwise; but watching what occurred on television, it seemed pretty clear that city and county law enforcement were either impotent or ordered to ‘stand down.’
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Donald Trump Jr. / Natalia Veselnitskaya / Sergei Magnitsky / The U.S. Magnitsky Act / What’s all this about?
1972 - 2009
Unless you’ve been on vacation at the North Pole, you’ve been bombarded daily with news and opinions about Donald Trump Jr. (The President’s son) having a meeting (weeks before the Presidential Election) with a Russian Attorney (possible operative) representing (allegedly) the Russian Government and indirectly Vladimir Putin.
Well, let’s just say that Donald Trump Jr. kind of stepped in it when he agreed to meet with Natalia Veselnitskaya. She apparently teased Junior with the claim that she and ‘the Russians’ had ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton. He reportedly responded in an email with “I love it.” Now, one would normally think that Junior would be smarter than that and, perhaps, considering the circumstances, use more grown-up terms in his emails, but…
Anyway, Natalia had nothing on Hillary other than what she might have read in the National Inquirer.
Nonetheless, Natalia did have a pitch to make to Junior; and it concerned the Magnitsky Act. I know you’ve heard this term bantered-about recently, but most have no idea who Magnitsky is/was or what he has to do with the ‘Act’; a law passed by the U.S. Congress. Apparently, Putin hates this law, and in particular the name. After the law passed, Putin retaliated by prohibiting Americans from adopting Russian orphans – even some children already in the pipeline for adoption.
The U.S. law (Magnitsky Act) bans numerous Russian officials and various Russian oligarchs from entering the U.S. Also, as I understand it, a lot of Russian money held in the American banking system was ‘frozen.’
The purpose of the law was in retaliation for the inhumane and barbaric treatment, and the ultimate death, of Sergei Magnitsky in a Russian prison.
Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian attorney and auditor who reportedly uncovered ‘State’ sponsored theft that benefited Vladimir Putin and some of his close associates. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
Well, Putin et al took this unkindly – as you might imagine. Magnitsky was imprisoned and died under the most difficult and abusive conditions imaginable.
There is a longer story to all of this which was exposed in a very good book Red Notice; authored by Bill Browder. The book gives you some insight into Putin’s Russia and the Russian prison system. Not pretty – think North Korean not pretty.
Monday, July 10, 2017
FBI Special Agent Joseph Astarita indicted on federal charges related to the killing of Robert “Lavoy” Finicum – Illegal Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. (Part 2 / Conclusion)
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) is the focal point, the head of the spear, for the FBI’s Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG). CIRG was formed after I left the Bureau and I don’t have any first-hand knowledge of its inner-workings. However, said Group incorporates many different areas of expertise: hostage negotiations, demolitions, in addition to HRT.
HRT Training is extremely difficult. The process, a few years back, required potential applicants for HRT training to have at least three years as a ‘street Agent,’ involved in working cases, writing reports, and occasionally being participants in arrest situations. CIRG had difficulty getting the necessary numbers and applicant quality required for HRT. Now CIRG has changed (not lowered) the requirement to two years on the ‘street’ as an Agent – and they have begun to recruit military type individuals like Navy SEALS, Army Rangers and other Special Ops veterans.
Which brings me to W. Joseph Astarita, the FBI Agent under indictment. As far as I know, his background and experience is not known – but we can assume his HRT training has been extensive.
I will get right to the point. Agent Astarita might have violated some obscure element of the FBI’s ‘rules of engagement’ when he fired his weapon at the car containing Finicum and the others. But let us remember that the driver of the car (Finicum) was attempting to evade law enforcement and his vehicle was approaching; at a high speed, a roadblock – behind which law enforcement officers were standing.
Question: Why were law enforcement personnel standing behind a roadblock (consisting of parked vehicles) with a suspect vehicle barreling toward them at a high rate of speed? Why not stand off to the side? Or behind a tree? The video showed one Agent jumping from behind the road block as Finicum’s car appeared to be on course to crash into the road block. This Agent almost made a fatal mistake in that Finicum decided to plow his automobile through the snow attempting to go around the law enforcement vehicles. The snow stopped the car, whereupon Finicum jumped out.
Depending where Astarita was standing at the time, he could have well believed that his life or the lives of others were in danger – warranting efforts to stop the car. Yes, I know there were ‘innocent’ passengers in Finicum vehicle, but that doesn’t change the decision process.
Let’s just say that Astarita, with all of his extensive training, was a little ‘trigger happy.’ I don’t happen to believe that, but let’s consider it for the sake of argument. And, in shooting, in some way, he had violated an FBI rule.
Did he contribute to the ultimate death of Finicum? That’s really a stretch, but one could say that Astarita’s shots raised the tension among law enforcement personnel at the scene, which contributed to lethal action - when the OSP officer ultimately shot Finicum. I don’t buy this, but this concept will undoubtedly be trotted out in the civil suit.
After shots were fired, Astarita picked up his spent cartridges, apparently doubting his personal judgment in firing at the car driven by Finicum - and then attempted to conceal the fact. This defies common sense – not the picking up of spent cartridges part – he may not have wanted to litter. (Yes, yes, stated with tongue in cheek.) But the part where he lied about it. Why would he do that?
There are a couple of possible answers that come to mind. Members of HRT are allegedly trained to the point of perceived perfection. And, consequently I imagine they are inordinately sensitive about their image and reputations.
Astarita might have fired accidentally, which might explain why one bullet missed Finicum’s car completely, and one bullet creased the roof of the car. If he, in the throes of understandable stress, accidentally pulled the trigger and/or missed the target he intended to hit, he might have been embarrassed enough to attempt to conceal the fact. The FBI's administration would have subsequently asked: Why did you fire your weapon? And, if justified as you say, why did you miss your target after we’ve spent all this time training you?
Or perhaps: There was a Team Leader with the HRT, presumably not Astarita; and that said team leader told his men not to fire until he gave the word. Astarita jumped the gun (so to speak), and consequently felt he violated the Team Leader’s orders.
On a HRT, not following directives, would be a bigger offense than an outsider might first think. Following orders is absolutely imperative to a high-speed organization like HRT. No free-lancing is allowed under most circumstances.
Astarita’s big mistake, that will undoubtedly cost him his job, is that he lied. And, furthermore, continued to lie after being placed under ‘oath.’ The FBI has no place for personnel that lie under ‘oath.’ Said individual can no longer testify in court without their credibility being immediately challenged.
If convicted should Astarita be sentenced to jail or prison time? I don’t think so. His lie compromised or injured no one other than himself – and he will probably regret his decision for the rest of his life.
What remains unanswerable at this point is whether or not some of the other HRT members also lied to protect Astarita? I hope not.
To visit my blog and many previous posts on various subjects, go to: