This story is about an Army officer returned from Afghanistan, court-martialed for adultery, and a disgruntled junior DEA officer who meet online and set up a big drug deal. Their plans end in horrible, disastrous consequences. It reads like a Hollywood movie. It’s thrilling and intriguing. Prima facie, it’s a good read. It’s worth reading, because it is the kind of story that should make you think really hard about the choices people, including you, make. It is an exciting and tragic read.
There are issues with the book, however, that I cannot overlook. I worked for DoD in a civilian capacity over 30 years. The last 8 years, I worked in a legal office. I do not have military service, nor law enforcement service, but working shoulder to shoulder in an environment filled with veterans and hearing our attorneys discuss military and federal personnel law gave me insight the author either lacks, or decided to overlook.
Kevin Corley is court-martialed because he had an affair; Slater minimizes it. He says the couple would not have stayed married, but there is no citation by the cuckolded husband. What we do know is Corley was an officer who had an affair with a woman who’d borne the child of an enlisted soldier, and the affair began while her husband was deployed. Corley’s behavior in life, before this affair started, was apparently quite honest. But not only was he guilty of adultery, after his court-martial, he continued the affair. And that is only the start of his many mistakes. Yet Slater paints him as a nice guy throughout the book. Indeed, a thoughtful man, but what thoughtful man does not try to learn from his mistakes?
Leonard decides in his mid-thirties, which is late in life, to become a DEA agent. He is stationed at Laredo, Texas. Slater discusses the fact that arrests are used as agency metrics, in a manner that can lead the reader to think it would be better if the DEA tracked metrics by convictions instead. But the DEA doesn’t try cases. Like your local police, DEA agents are law enforcement officers, not attorneys. The Department of Justice tries cases after arrest. It’s important to understand this because Leonard is painted as an ambitious agent, and he was. But the metric argument is meaningless, and Slater tells us Leonard is self-motivated to start undercover work. This, too, is a horrible decision, partly due to the unintended consequences that occur in the story, but also because he started his undercover work with no authority whatsoever. He was not at his duty station. He was working outside his regular work schedule. He broke personnel laws. A federal employee cannot work for free, and must be accountable for all work. This can be boiled down to simple liability. If you are working, but not at the right time and place, and you are injured, you could try to file a compensation claim. But you have no standing if you are not assigned or ordered to do what you were doing when you were injured. Slater doesn’t discuss this at all, whether he chose not to or didn’t know himself. But while I was impressed by Leonard’s self-motivation, I was aghast at his behavior as an employee. Still, he managed to pull it off without disciplinary action. In fact, his managers later get in on the drug sting act.
These points are glaring and bothering to me, because in the end, when the inevitable snafu occurs, the reader is led to think rather highly of both these men, and badly of the DEA’s and DOJ’s actions. There are bad actions, but none would happen if one of these men had stopped and stepped back to assess risk-taking. Slater relies on Corley’s and Leonard’s excuses to amplify what are, in truth, some shady moves by both agencies. The end result is a partial truth story, that does not include the after actions of the DEA and DOJ. The devil is in the details that are omitted, by intention or by error. Did Slater intend to lead the reader by making these men sympathetic fellows in the same manner he states the DEA leads otherwise law-abiding citizens into crime?