In 2015 I was honored to have access to interview Christin Slough, wife of Paul Slough, invited me to a gathering in San Antonio with Micah Hoevelman where I conducted interviews to tell the real story and expose the injustice done to the men of Raven 23. This is their story: (transcript at bottom)
Transcript:
(0:02) Welcome to Chosen Generation with your host, Pastor Greg Young. (0:08) But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, (0:14) that you should shoo forth the praises of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light, (0:19) which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God, (0:23) which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. (0:27) And now, broadcasting live from the KERV Revolution Broadcasting Studios (0:32) in the heart of the hill country of Texas, Pastor Greg Young.
(0:36) Hey, this is Pastor Greg, your host for Chosen Generation, (0:53) and I am here with Kristen Slough, and she is the wife of Paul Slough, (0:58) and he is one of the four individuals who was convicted this last October (1:03) in a trial regarding the Blackwater event that took place in 2007. (1:07) And, of course, we’ve had Kristen on the program before, (1:11) and what we really want to do, Kristen, is we want to let folks know what’s really going on, (1:18) what’s been happening, and as I mentioned in our previous conversation, (1:23) one of the greatest concerns that I think we as Americans need to have in understanding this is (1:28) is that, you know, our military guys are the next step. (1:35) I really believe that.
(1:36) I believe that our own military guys, our special operations guys, we just watched that. (1:42) The young man who was tried for defending his squadron, his group, over in Iraq, (1:52) and was given sentence, that just came through. (1:56) And I believe that’s where this regime is going, but we really want to focus on your story.
(2:04) So let’s go back a little bit, and when you were with me last time, (2:08) we talked in terms of leading up to the events that took place. (2:13) You shared how you found out about it from your mom who’d seen it in a news report. (2:20) Then you guys felt like you were out of the woods.
(2:23) It was cleared three days later by the State Department. (2:26) Three weeks later, the FBI comes in, goes to a scene that’s not been locked down, (2:32) and starts gathering who knows what kind of evidence, (2:36) and that becomes the basis for a trial seven years later. (2:44) What are some of the things that were presented in that case that are just kind of way outside of normal bounds? (2:57) Well, y’all would be surprised at some of the stories that they spun.
(3:00) One of the key features of this event is that the car my husband was the turret gunner on was shot multiple times. (3:07) There are multiple bullet holes on the side of the car, (3:11) and their radiator was shot out and had to be towed out of the square. (3:15) So in order for the FBI and DOJ to say, no, they did not take any incoming fire, (3:21) they had to explain away, I mean, clear bullet marks on the side of the car, (3:25) as well as the radiator being shot out.
(3:27) So their theory was that a 203 round, (3:32) which was shot at a white Kia that had lurched out of traffic and was coming towards the convoy, (3:39) even though it had been warned, all the other traffic had been stopped, (3:42) it was coming towards them, so they used escalating force to stop the vehicle. (3:46) And even after they shot the front of the car, it was still coming. (3:50) So there was a 203 round shot at the ground at the front of the car (3:54) to break the axle, basically, to force it to stop coming forward.
(3:59) And they say that ricochet of these tiny little frags that are the size of Tic Tacs (4:04) caused the radiator leak, as well as peppered the side of the car. (4:09) Well, and I keep calling it a car because I’m a girl. (4:13) The vehicle, right? (4:14) Okay.
(4:15) So it doesn’t make any sense, though, because if you look at the pictures, (4:18) which are on our website at supportraven23.com, (4:21) you will see that the bullet marks are at the top of the vehicle. (4:25) They were aimed at my husband, who was the turret gunner on that car. (4:29) And there is nothing between the top, where they were firing, and the bottom, (4:34) where if something had exploded, an incendiary on the ground, (4:37) it would have sprayed the entire side of the vehicle.
(4:40) So this was their theory. (4:42) And they went in gangbusters with this theory and sold it pretty hard. (4:47) I mean, they had experts come in and say, yes, that this was, I guess, possible.
(4:53) I don’t think anybody ever came out and said, oh, yeah, this is definitely what happened. (4:58) But they had experts that said that their theory was possible. (5:02) So a round is shot from your husband’s group towards this vehicle that won’t stop, (5:12) that is barreling ahead towards them, (5:14) and somehow the ricochet of the explosion of that round came back into the convoy.
(5:24) That’s the story. (5:25) That is the story. (5:27) So, you know, the 203 round, I am not a weapons expert by any means, (5:32) but it is a round that is filled with tiny, like tic-tac-sized frags, (5:38) and these frags explode upon impact.
(5:41) So you would expect these tiny little tic-tac-sized frags to explode out, (5:45) like you would a paintball or anything else, in a spray-like pattern. (5:49) They would not be peppering the top of a vehicle in a straight line. (5:54) Those were bullets that were aimed at my husband, (5:56) and there was a fragment of a bullet stuck in his turret.
(5:59) All right. (6:02) We’re good? Okay. (6:03) I have a gentleman here who actually has, you know, that military background as well, (6:09) and I just wanted to see if there was any additional thing he wanted to add.
(6:13) But it doesn’t, basically it makes no sense. (6:18) No, it doesn’t make any sense. (6:20) I mean, that was one of a, like a feature of this whole thing (6:23) was that they had to sell a story that they did not take any incoming fire.
(6:28) So they spun this entirely ridiculous fabricated tale (6:31) about how the radiator got shot out on the car and how those bullet holes appeared. (6:35) And if you show that picture to anybody, (6:37) anybody who has ever shot a weapon knows those are bullet holes. (6:40) Now, when we talk about the fire that they took, (6:46) did they lose any of their team in the process of this? (6:51) No.
(6:51) Actually, there were no casualties or injuries on the American team that day. (6:56) You know, they were in very armored vehicles. (6:58) One of the guys, one of the defendants, actually, (7:01) something, I don’t know the name of it, (7:04) it came through his window and landed in his flight suit and burnt up his forearms.
(7:09) And I think it was like, I think it’s called a tracer round. (7:12) So there was one injury that we’re aware of that was one of the guys. (7:16) And they had to explain that away in a similar fashion.
(7:21) So they said that it was a pin flare that he set off himself to appear injured. (7:29) So, in other words, the whole idea was to try to create a scenario (7:33) where they laid all of the blame on the Americans (7:41) and basically said that the Americans premeditatedly created any other damage (7:47) or any other issues to try to make it look as though they were innocent. (7:50) Yeah, it was a pretty wild tale.
(7:52) And, you know, honestly, it’s hard to sell that, (7:55) that a group of 19 people would, you know, collude and advance the fake attack. (8:01) So that was where the whole legal framework of the aiding and abetting thing came in. (8:06) Because it was like, yeah, we’re really not going to be able to sell this (8:09) and say, you know, these people murdered these individuals (8:12) because we can’t actually tie any defendant to any alleged victim.
(8:17) So we’re just going to use some legal framework that says (8:20) if you believe a crime was committed at all (8:22) and anybody participated in that crime (8:25) and participated is a difficult word to decipher in this situation, (8:29) that they are also culpable. (8:32) All right, let’s go back a little bit to the mission itself. (8:35) The mission that they’re involved in, (8:37) and we talked a little bit about this on the program, is defense of an asset.
(8:43) There is a state asset that is being taken to a particular location, (8:48) to a meeting. (8:49) Oftentimes there were varying locations on where those might take place. (8:54) And these are security, defense-positioned people (8:58) whose purpose it is is to protect that asset from the potential threats.
(9:05) And when we look at 2007 in Iraq, there were a lot of threats. (9:10) There were territorial fights that were taking place. (9:13) There were warlords who were looking to gain an upper hand (9:16) as it related to particular negotiations.
(9:19) There was a lot of friction that was taking place. (9:24) Is that an accurate assessment? (9:26) To say the least. (9:26) It was one of the bloodiest years in the entire engagement over there.
(9:31) And there are multiple teams that were working that day and in that place. (9:35) So there are ambassador protection details that are primary teams (9:38) that actually move the protectees back and forth, (9:42) teams my husband served on as well. (9:45) The team that he was serving on that day was a tactical support team.
(9:48) So they’re the ones that responded after something had already happened. (9:52) So there was a massive IED explosion with a primary team (9:58) that was out with a protectee, and they needed a route of egress secured. (10:03) So two teams were, I guess, deployed.
(10:06) There was a secondary and then a tertiary team to go (10:09) and provide these routes of egress, (10:11) which is what sent this team without a protectee out into the square that day. (10:16) It was simply to lock down the square and provide an avenue, (10:19) a route option, to say, to the primary team that had been attacked. (10:24) So here we have this group of individuals who essentially have to clear a path (10:31) so that there is an option coming from whatever direction the injured party has been, (10:40) and those that are under fire are coming from, (10:43) in order to make it back to the embassy, in order to make it back to safety.
(10:46) That’s correct. (10:46) And they have to do multiple options because of the fact that the insurgency (10:52) had a pretty patterned MO of making a primary attack (10:56) and then setting up an ambush on their route of egress to the people who are responding. (11:02) So going into, if you kind of look at it from my husband’s point of view, (11:05) you’re going into a square, you’re expecting something to happen (11:09) because that’s the pattern.
(11:11) They come after the responders, and you’re expecting that to happen (11:14) because it’s the most direct route from where the protectee was back to the green zone. (11:19) So they go out there and they’re expecting this. (11:22) So they lock down the square, all the cars stop coming, (11:26) and a white Kia pops out of traffic two or three cars back and continues to come at them.
(11:31) So they fire into the grill of the car. (11:33) Car keeps coming. (11:35) They neutralize the driver.
(11:36) Car keeps coming. (11:38) One of the guys, the guy that took the plea deal, (11:42) and that is probably its own interview all in itself, (11:46) that he admits that he killed the passenger of that vehicle, (11:50) and then there was finally a 203 round, that incendiary round, (11:55) that was blown up at the vehicle’s axle to try to stop it to move (11:59) because actually in the course of all this happening, (12:02) the traffic police had come up and were handling the vehicle, (12:05) and they appeared to be pushing it forward. (12:07) I mean, this looked like a coordinated attack.
(12:10) And within moments, they were taking small arms fire. (12:14) The Americans? (12:15) The Americans were taking small arms fire, incoming small arms fire. (12:19) And so then at that point, obviously, as we know, there are rules of engagement.
(12:24) Their first rule was they were trying to clear a path that existed there (12:28) in order to bring these guys back home to safety that had come under fire. (12:34) They generally didn’t go out with the idea that we’re going to have to engage, (12:39) although since it’s a hot zone, that was likely going to happen. (12:44) Sure.
(12:45) And so now they’re taking fire and returning fire. (12:48) Mm-hmm. (12:49) What’s the next step? (12:51) So the next step is they have to hook up a tow out.
(12:53) So they actually reposition the vehicles to try to maintain some semblance of safety. (12:58) People have to hop out of their armored vehicles and hook up a tow. (13:02) So they do it as quickly as they possibly can, (13:05) and then they try to egress by following around the circle to the north.
(13:10) And that square, the circle was partially closed with jersey barriers (13:16) because it was having to be reconstructed due to a V-BID that had blown up there months prior. (13:20) So there was a serious traffic situation. (13:22) And a V-BID, for my listeners that may not know what that is.
(13:24) A vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. (13:28) So there was a vehicle that had gone into that square just months prior and had exploded, (13:34) and they were having pretty serious construction. (13:37) And they had a portion of the circle closed down.
(13:41) So, you know, you imagine the chaos of Baghdad, all that traffic, part of it’s closed down. (13:47) They have these huge armored vehicles. (13:49) There’s four of them.
(13:50) And they’re trying to work their way out of the square and back to the green zone. (13:55) And if I’m not mistaken, Baghdad is one of the larger cities in the world. (14:01) You know, I actually have no idea.
(14:04) Well, I’m going to do a quick look-up to see what the population is of Baghdad. (14:11) Yeah, I would say that’s fairly large. (14:13) Well, this is from 1987 because I don’t know if we can even go over there and figure it out at this point.
(14:19) But 3.8 million. (14:22) Yeah, that’s a lot of folks. (14:23) That’s a pretty good-sized city.
(14:25) And it’s a city that was and is in chaos. (14:29) Well, I can only imagine. (14:31) I mean, it’s a city that’s been divided up.
(14:33) Imagine, you know, the Mexican border divided up by cartels, cartel wars, bodies strewn all over, (14:43) and, you know, most of that activity being brought about by locals. (14:49) I mean, that’s the kind of warring that you’ve got going on. (14:54) And here we are in the midst of all that trying to bring some kind of order to a very chaotic situation.
(15:02) So now this event has taken place. (15:05) But there’s some other key things that you had mentioned to me that I think are important to bring out. (15:11) In addition to the fact that these guys are taking fire, (15:15) they’re returning fire to the areas where they recognize that there’s a problem.
(15:21) But in addition to that, there’s this individual who is the quote-unquote government witness, as it relates to this, (15:31) who is not just returning fire to places where fire is coming from, (15:37) but has stated and apparently evidence supports that he’s shooting all over the place. (15:44) He’s just kind of lost it. (15:46) Yeah, and, you know, we didn’t know that for years and years.
(15:48) And, Irene, that wasn’t really something that came out to us and was apparent to us until the trial really started. (15:54) Because when you are in a vehicle like that, you have a 19-member team. (15:57) Everybody has a very specific position.
(15:59) Everybody has a very specific direction they’re supposed to be looking. (16:02) And, of course, their head’s on a swivel. (16:04) But you’re responsible for a primary sector of that convoy.
(16:09) So while all of this is going on, you may be three feet from somebody and not see what they’re doing. (16:16) It’s very common. (16:17) Well, you can’t be.
(16:19) I mean, you have a field that is active that you are absolutely responsible to make sure that there’s no threat in the field that you’re looking at. (16:33) You can’t be busy looking at everybody else’s six and watching what the guy next to you is looking at (16:45) because you’re not going to be able to maintain your field. (16:48) Yeah, absolutely.
(16:49) So I think that there is probably this sense that, you know, if you’re looking at a team and from a totally outsider’s perspective (16:55) and from a perspective I once held is that, you know, you would know if the guy next to you was, you know, messing up (17:01) or the guy in the next car over because you’re close together. (17:03) You know, everybody’s aware of what you’re doing. (17:05) That is not the case at all.
(17:06) I mean, especially when you layer in the fog of war and the tunnel vision and the, you know, the focus that you’re required to maintain (17:15) in order to return fire, locate legitimate threats that are hiding from you and from coming from different areas (17:23) and you’re just having to use small clues to determine where they are. (17:26) All of this takes place. (17:28) All these casings are on the ground.
(17:31) Our American force, the Blackwater security forces have now been removed out because all of this has happened. (17:41) How did the element that was originally part of the rescue mission, were they able to make it back to the green zone? (17:50) How did they come through? (17:52) You know, that’s one of the details that I probably can’t provide, but we’ll get that. (17:57) Okay.
(17:57) So I do know that they did make it back, that their protective was safe. (18:01) I also know that there was about an hour later, like a standoff in that same square. (18:07) So, you know, everybody was on high alert after what happened.
(18:11) And as another team came through, there was basically a standoff with the Iraqi National Police. (18:19) They didn’t want to let them through. (18:21) So they actually were holding them at gunpoint briefly until somebody from the United States Army came out (18:27) and kind of negotiated the situation and they, you know, de-escalated it and sent them on.
(18:33) So I know in that same area, there was like basically a standoff an hour later because tensions were very high. (18:40) And that was between what two forces? (18:42) I believe that it was between another Blackwater team and the Iraqi National Police or the Iraqi Army. (18:51) I’m sorry, I don’t know which.
(18:52) Well, and that’s another point as we consider this situation to remember, folks, (18:58) is that, you know, the Iraqi forces, as we mentioned previously, had been infiltrated. (19:06) There were double agents, if you want to call it, insurgents of a sort. (19:12) So you couldn’t really necessarily trust who you were going to be dealing with when you were dealing with the Iraqi forces (19:22) because at that point in time, they had their own loyalties and you had warlords (19:32) who were threatening police force members and their families that if they didn’t provide information, (19:39) if they didn’t make certain availabilities for the insurgents to be able to do the damage that they were trying to do, (19:51) if that didn’t happen, family members would die.
(19:55) Yeah, there are two huge reasons why you had to be very careful about those situations with uniformed personnel. (20:02) So the first one you covered pretty well. (20:04) It was deeply corrupt.
(20:06) As a matter of fact, there was a report out, I believe it was prior to this incident. (20:10) Actually, I’m certain it was prior to this incident that they had access to that said the Iraqi police force was so deeply corrupted, (20:17) so incompetent, so badly, you know, compromised that they felt like it should be entirely separated from any of our efforts, (20:27) like we should no longer cooperate with those forces because they had been infiltrated so badly by the insurgency. (20:33) And that was actually a report that they had access to, you know, prior to this whole thing taking place.
(20:39) Right. (20:39) And then the second piece of it is, you know, if that wasn’t enough, (20:44) somebody standing there in a uniform may not be an Iraqi police officer at all. (20:48) You can buy police officer uniforms on roadside stands.
(20:51) It’s like going to Chinatown and getting a fake Prada purse. (20:53) You know, you just go down the alley and you get one. (20:55) You know, it’s not necessarily permissible, but they’re readily available, and it’s a known fact.
(21:00) We have a picture of a roadside stand selling Iraqi police uniforms. (21:04) Well, and I think that was one of the things, Kristen, that was brought up in our previous interview as well, (21:09) that you have a situation where as you come up on a road stop, (21:14) you don’t know if you’re dealing with some rogue territorial insurgent group that is dressing as police. (21:23) You don’t know if they’re going to give you a pass.
(21:25) You don’t know if they’re going to shake you down and want some kind of graft in order to get through. (21:30) My background in that was several trips that I made to Nigeria, and we were on a mission. (21:37) Fake checkpoints.
(21:38) Yeah, and they were consistent. (21:40) They were consistent. (21:41) Whenever we were driven around, we drove from Lagos to the Republic of Benin, (21:46) which one was English and they left, and the other one was French and they left.
(21:52) But on the way, we had several stops. (21:55) All of the Nigerians that we were with were armed, several with submachine guns, to protect us, to defend us. (22:06) And, you know, they even said, they said, now just don’t say anything.
(22:11) Don’t look at them. (22:13) You know, we’ve got this under control. (22:17) We know who’s who, and they know who we are.
(22:22) And we were traveling under the protection of a very high-level bishop who was also very good friends with the president of the country. (22:31) And so once they figured out who all, you know, our escorts were, it made a difference. (22:37) But we had, I think, three or four different occasions to be very, very concerned, you know, about who we were dealing with.
(22:47) And these were all different, you know, warlords that had different controls of different areas of the roads that we were on. (22:57) And most of them were uniformed. (23:00) So, you know, not knowing any better, we might have assumed, if we hadn’t been with those guys, that they were all legit.
(23:09) Yeah, you know, and that’s really kind of the crux, one of the many, of this whole issue is that when you go to trial, you are guaranteed a trial by a jury of your peers. (23:21) And the situation that was happening in Iraq, there’s no way to recreate that in a courtroom. (23:26) There’s no way to recreate that for somebody whose entire personal experience is that you can trust people in uniform.
(23:32) You can trust that they have that uniform because they are part of our armed forces or a Leo or law enforcement officer. (23:40) So, you know, our expectation from living in the United States is that when you see somebody in a uniform, y’all are on the same team. (23:47) Although I think that that’s been greatly undermined by some of the current events.
(23:50) I was going to say, unless you’re a progressive Marxist communist and now you are, you know, using George Soros’s money to fund riots in order to try to overthrow that. (24:02) And of course, my opinion of that is the whole purpose behind that. Think about this for just a minute, Kristen.
(24:08) If you’re thinking about United Nations forces, OK, most of them are not white in uniform. (24:14) So if you need to vilify a particular group, you’re going to think about white and in uniform to vilify so that you can nationalize the police force and bring in international troops and international individuals. (24:29) In order to try to push your agenda.
(24:35) And so anyway, that’s a little background on what I think a lot of this is about, because we know that the regime leader has gone to the United Nations and is trying to get them involved in trying to enforce things here so that he can get rid of our imperial colonist, colonist United States that he grew up hating so much. (24:56) And that’s where a lot of this comes from. I mean, honestly, that’s really the truthfully where a lot of this comes from, folks, of what’s happened to the folks at Blackwater.
(25:05) So now we have this situation. (25:08) They’ve been rescued out of this, obviously, because there has been a conflict that’s taken place. (25:15) Weapons drawn.
Bullets fly. (25:18) The State Department comes in. (25:20) They go to the scene as best as they can, even considering the fact that it’s still a very hostile area, high trafficked area shells, not just from this incident that have taken place.
(25:33) But, you know, as you mentioned, construction underway because of a vehicle that had already blown up in that square previously. (25:40) It’s a mess. (25:41) This is not this is not a clean crime scene.
(25:44) But as best as they can, they gather all the information that they can. (25:50) Three days later, the State Department releases a statement that says we believe that the actions of the Blackwater security team are in line with what we would have expected them to have to do under the circumstances that they found themselves in. (26:10) Is it unfortunate? (26:12) Yes.
(26:12) Are there are there, you know, tragedies and tragic things that are surrounding this? (26:17) Yes. (26:17) But all of that taken into account. (26:21) What what happened was not the fall of the Blackwater.
(26:25) It wasn’t something that they that these individuals said, we’re going to go in here and we’re going to raise cane and we’re going to create problems. (26:32) And, you know, and all this other kind of stuff that was later attributed to this. (26:37) Three weeks later, the FBI decides they’re going to investigate the same crime scene, which has not been secured.
(26:47) They attempt. (26:49) We’ll say loosely attempt because there’s not any way that you can truly gather evidence three weeks after the fact. (26:56) You know, I’ve had prowlers coming on my property and I go check my fences because I’ve had fences that have been cut because somebody is coming on and harassing my family.
(27:06) And I and it’s probably related to my radio show because there’s there may be some people out there that don’t like the truth getting out. (27:12) But nonetheless, you know, if it rains, the scenes changed. (27:18) Right.
You know, the footprints that were there aren’t. (27:21) And I’ve got a horse that tramples footprints and you can’t do that. (27:25) So this evidence three weeks later gathered by the FBI becomes the impetus for a case that’s tried seven years later.
(27:38) Is that accurate? (27:39) Yeah. You know, and even just to go back to what the State Department had access to, even just within a few days of the situation taking place. (27:45) If you look at it, the car is shot up.
(27:48) You know, it’s been towed out. (27:50) There’s bullet holes in it. (27:51) And they also know because they operate in this area, they perform investigations in this area.
(27:58) This is their area of expertise that just because there is somebody laying on the ground that does not have a weapon next to them does not necessarily mean that they are not an insurgent. (28:08) Because the pattern in the history there is that the insurgents remove all of their weapons and they just try to make it look like, you know, that they came in and just started shooting people. (28:18) Their modus operandi is making their own look like innocent civilians because the only thing different between a civilian and the surgeon is a gun.
(28:26) And sometimes not even that much. (28:28) Right. (28:28) And then additionally, they actually put civilians in harm’s way intentionally to demonize our people.
(28:35) Well, and let’s draw some parallelisms between Hamas in Israel and the Palestinians. (28:45) We know that this is a tact that they’ve used. (28:49) We know that they have continually used that in Israel where they will hide in homes.
(28:55) We know that they were using that same tactic in Iraq, that they would go into civilian populated areas, use civilian populated homes as a hiding place and use human shields in order to carry out their insurgent actions. (29:11) So we know that those kinds of things were going on. (29:15) And yet what I think I’m hearing you say is that none of that was taken into consideration when the prosecutors brought this case to bear this past October.
(29:31) No, and less so than it just not being taken into consideration. (29:35) It was intentionally covered up, downplayed and minimized. (29:39) They fought us tooth and nail on what evidence could be brought in.
(29:44) We had to fight even to get a map in of the recent events that had taken place and situations and threats that had taken. (29:51) So we had to fight tooth and nail for every single piece of evidence that supported our side of the story. (29:57) So they tried to make this out like DuPont Circle in Washington, D.C., that these men came in there and just opened fire.
(30:03) And that is not the situation at all. (30:06) So, you know, if you’re the State Department and you look and you see that a vehicle has been, you know, marked up with bullet marks on the side, you see the white Kia. (30:15) It is clearly popped out of traffic.
It’s only feet away from their convoy when they finally got it to stop. (30:20) You know, this looks like a very legitimate situation here. (30:24) And because, you know.
You’re looking at the fact that there you know that there are people who are killed in this area at this time that they don’t have weapons on them, according to the Iraqi police, because they were in control of the scene for three days. (30:41) Control is a loose term here, right? (30:42) They were the ones who performed the initial investigation and gathered the initial information that they’re simply reporting that there were not weapons with these with these victims. (30:54) And Kristen, the other thing is, is the irony of this to me is that we know going forward and and folks, this is a trial that just happened.
(31:06) So we could look back seven years and say, well, if this trial took place seven years ago and and and we didn’t have a clear understanding of how groups like ISIS groups like Al Qaeda groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Boko Haram in in Nigeria, how they have used pictures, social media, changing and rearranging bodies, scenes, all this. (31:35) If we didn’t have the background of that, we might be able to give them a slide and say, well, they didn’t understand all that seven years ago, but we didn’t try this case seven years ago. (31:58) Absolutely.
And there’s a piece here relating to the number of victims that I think is incredibly important. (32:11) And it’s because the number of victims just kept going up and going up and going up. (32:18) Every time we’d hear something about it on the news, the number kept going up.
(32:21) And we find out later that essentially the Iraqi police put a commercial on the TV that said, if you were hurt or injured in, you know, Nisour Square on September 16, 2007, call our offices. (32:35) And at the time, if you were hurt or injured or your family member was hurt or injured or, you know, experienced property damage, you got a paycheck. (32:44) You got a paycheck.
So this number just kept going up because people are calling in and saying, yeah, you know, my husband was there. (32:53) Sounds like free cell phones. Yeah.
Free cell phone. Yeah. Free cell phones.
Vote, vote, vote, vote for that, that that guy in the White House. (33:00) So there’s really not a clear indication of how many people were there. (33:03) But apparently if a prosecutor says that they were there, apparently they were there.
(33:09) The evidence that we have related to these individuals, there were no autopsies performed. (33:13) It’s against their religion. Can’t do that.
Right. But no bodies were produced for many of these alleged victims. (33:19) We don’t even have any physical evidence that that person was there.
(33:22) The evidence that they relied on, the charge my husband has been convicted of murdering an individual because his son said that he passed through that circle every day between two to three p.m. (33:35) And he didn’t come home from work that day. And that is the reason my husband will spend it potentially many, many decades. (33:44) Yeah.
But what’s the real zinger? The real zinger was that it was at noon. Yeah. (33:49) The whole thing.
It was at noon. The guy passed through the square between two to three p.m. and didn’t show up at home that day. (33:54) Yeah.
So there is. Has he has he ever made it home? No, I guess not. (33:59) I don’t know.
I don’t know. Well, he didn’t come home that day. (34:03) Well, but but.
And again, this is where we have to understand, as we’ve talked about a lot on the program, the issue of Takiyah within Islam, the issue of lying because of jihad. (34:16) This is an environment where literally ninety nine and a half percent of the participants outside of the individuals that were in that caravan are involved in jihad of some form, fulfilling the sixth pillar of Islam. (34:39) That’s a significant issue as well when you’re trying to gather real evidence and people’s lives are at stake based on the evidence that you present.
(34:49) Yeah, absolutely. So I’ll tell you a little bit more about some of these alleged victims real quick. (34:54) But I definitely want to come back to that because there is some important testimony that really nailed that in the actual trial.
(35:00) So with some of the alleged victims, one of them admitted to being a 15 to 30 minute walk away. (35:06) He was in his apartment and a bullet came in and like hit him in the arm. (35:10) And my husband has been charged with attempting to murdering him.
(35:13) Fifteen to 30 minute walk away from the square because they sent in and no doubt there was an army occurrence at that exact same time, actually right outside this person’s residence. (35:25) And the onus gets blamed on the Blackwater guys because it was just all about trumping the whole thing up. (35:30) So there is really no clear pathological or physical evidence that all of these victims were even at this scene.
(35:40) You know, keeping in mind that an IED had just blown up, you know, a block or two north of there just moments prior and that their death certificates had been changed. (35:50) You know, one of the death certificates said that they died as a result of terrorism. (35:54) Well, you would expect that if somebody was killed by an allied force, they’re not going to mark the cause of death as terrorism, right? (36:00) One would one would think, although let me play the devil’s advocate.
(36:06) Right. Doesn’t that also speak to how they viewed Americans or at least certain elements viewed Americans at that time? (36:20) Right. They saw us as the enemy, the great devil.
(36:26) They saw us as that. And I think that plays in to the entire scenario of what took place, what happened. (36:35) You know, when you have someone that has that kind of hate and animosity towards us, obviously shooting at that convoy becomes a fairly realistic thought.
(36:48) Yeah, it’s pretty ugly either way you slice it. Sure. (36:51) Either that person’s death wasn’t attributed to that or that’s really an indicator of how they felt about it.
(36:56) Well, and I think that whether that person’s death is attributable to that activity or not, they can still label it as a terrorist act. (37:08) Sure. And then that becomes their reason for attaching it to that event.
(37:14) I mean, think about, you know, the guy in Oklahoma that just beheaded the woman. Right. (37:19) Who’s being told by an imam and who says the reason I’m doing this is why? (37:26) Well, because Americans are killing my brothers overseas.
(37:30) I mean, that that that’s the mentality and it’s right here in our country right now. (37:36) Yeah, it is. It is.
And it’s spreading. Yeah. (37:38) And it is the scariest, the scariest thing I think that we face as a nation is the demonization of our core values and our Christian roots.
(37:48) Yes. And the liberalization and the encouragement of all of these perverse ideals. (37:56) There’s there’s no question about it.
(37:57) And, of course, secular humanism, as we’ve watched in England and as we watched over in France with the Charlie Hedbo situation that just happened. (38:04) But secular humanism, the driving out of God is creating the vacuum that Islam is filling. (38:12) They filled it in Europe and they’re they’re they’re working on filling it right here as well.
(38:17) Where there isn’t light, there’s darkness there. That’s the truth. (38:19) And there was a lot of darkness that day in that square.
(38:23) And that’s one of the issues that was not a part of this. (38:26) So let’s come back to some of the facts that we know. (38:29) This situation took place in 2007.
(38:32) Three days later, the State Department, after their investigation, clears the Blackwater security detail of of any wrongdoing in the sense of intentional wrongdoing. (38:46) Sure. Three weeks later, the FBI comes in.
(38:49) Now they do this investigation. (38:52) Paul Janicek talked about this on the program. (38:54) Paul was actually assigned to that embassy as an asset.
(38:58) Was part of not not a security detail in the sense of being a security, but actually as part of an asset. (39:06) Having gone out, talked about the animosity that existed between certain elements there in that environment, vilifying or attempting to vilify the Blackwater security teams. (39:19) Paul’s take on it was, you know, these are good guys.
(39:23) They were contractors. They saved his life. (39:27) Now we see another effort to try to bring them again in 2007.
(39:34) And they weren’t they. (39:36) There was not enough evidence again. (39:37) Once again, through those eyes to bring charges.
(39:43) So it wasn’t until I believe 2011. (39:47) Right. Or what? (39:49) Give me the timeline there.
(39:50) So initially the FBI performed their investigation. (39:53) They clearly did it through a lens of we need to establish guilt. (39:57) That was the purpose.
(39:58) It was never about finding the truth or justice or any of those things that we seem to like here. (40:03) So he go they go in as the FBI and perform this investigation and they come back and they send all these target letters. (40:10) And, you know, we find out that this thing is becoming like a serious legal matter.
(40:14) And they actually do issue indictments. (40:17) They go to the grand jury. (40:18) They get an indictment.
(40:19) And there’s kind of this saying in the legal profession that you could indict a ham sandwich. (40:24) It’s kind of a joke, right? (40:24) Like you can really get an indictment if there’s any reason to believe that anything could have possibly gone wrong, (40:29) which makes the Darren Wilson case incredibly interesting. (40:33) But that because I was thinking the same thing.
(40:35) I thought, you know, if the grand jury can’t convict the guy and it’s that easy or not convict, (40:41) but bring enough to bring charges as easy as it is in a grand jury and has as wide open as evidence is that has to tell you something. (40:51) It does. (40:52) It tells you something huge.
(40:53) Yeah. (40:54) So they bring the indictment. (40:55) But I think one thing that we talked about the last time I was here was that they use these impermissible statements.
(41:00) They use protected statements to create this case. (41:04) Right. (41:04) So in the months that were that were leading up to what would have been a criminal trial, (41:10) there were these castigar hearings.
(41:12) And what they are is they deal with evidence taint and they kind of dig through about what is permissible and what is not. (41:18) And in the course of that, the entire case was dismissed by the judge because he said essentially that you have trampled their constitutional rights by using these statements. (41:27) You’ve allowed it to completely cloud your entire case and basically said, you know, you can’t unmix Kool-Aid.
(41:33) So I’m dismissing this. (41:35) I’m not giving it back to you to try again. (41:37) I’m dismissing it.
(41:38) So the government that was not a good answer for them. (41:41) They were pretty embarrassed and pretty unhappy. (41:43) So they booted the original prosecutorial team, pulled in a taint lawyer, somebody who’s going to sift through this and unmix the Kool-Aid.
(41:52) And they go through the appellate process to try to get the original judge’s ruling overturned. (41:56) And eventually, I mean, this is like years, years, years long. (42:00) Finally, they get it overturned and the appellate court says, OK, here’s the deal.
(42:05) We’re not going to dismiss the entire thing, but you have to start completely over and you’d better not use any tainted evidence. (42:12) Well, at that point, my husband’s statement had been released in the news. (42:15) If you can go to like CBS, I believe it is right now.
(42:19) Right. (42:19) And look up my husband’s entire protected statement. (42:21) So how you unmix the Kool-Aid and talk to witnesses who have had access to this for now years and trying to pull all this apart and recreate a botched investigation from the get go is almost it is unfathomable.
(42:38) The fact that I’m sitting here in this chair having this conversation is unfathomable based on that fact alone, much less all of the other complicating factors. (42:46) So essentially they ended up starting over. (42:50) They issued fresh target letters, a fresh indictment, and we started over years and years later.
(42:56) And that is how we ended up going for a criminal trial in 2014. (43:01) And it was actually we started June the 11th of last year. (43:06) And it was a month long trial and almost two months of jury deliberations because they couldn’t even make heads or tail out of it.
(43:12) And at the end of the day, you know, they have to rely on the jury instructions and they’ve been given instructions that if anything wrong happened, you basically have to hold all of these people accountable. (43:23) And that was really what ended up in, you know, I think it was 71 individual counts against. (43:30) So the only way that the conviction takes place is essentially under a jury instruction that says.
(43:41) You know, if they jaywalked. (43:45) Then then throw the book at them, because if anything wrong happened at all, anything period. (43:52) Then then they’re all guilty and and and need to be charged.
(43:56) Yeah, absolutely. (43:58) If you’re sitting at a table and one person knocks over a glass of milk and everybody is now responsible for the glass of milk. (44:05) That is exactly what’s happened here.
(44:06) I mean, I hate to be so simplistic about it. (44:08) That is truthfully what it is. (44:10) And by and by using the aiding and abetting framework.
(44:14) Right. (44:15) Putting this witness out there who said, yes, I shot this person and I sprayed all these bullets down there. (44:20) I mean, he basically said I committed a bunch of crimes.
(44:22) So if you’ve told a jury, if you think anybody’s committed a crime, everybody’s guilty. (44:28) Who’s not here on this defendant team and they participated and by participated, they meant firing a weapon. (44:34) Right.
And they’re all guilty. (44:36) So that’s how we ended up where we are. (44:38) And it took away their right to self-defense.
(44:40) Everybody has the right to defend themselves. (44:42) And they negated their right to self-defense in a combat zone because somebody else made a bad decision. (44:48) And I think it’s important, you know, to touch on that some and we can come back and get more into that.
(44:55) And I know there’s probably more information, you know, as you and I talked a little bit before. (44:59) But you’ve got an individual again who probably should never have been in that vehicle. (45:06) Right.
(45:07) Should probably never have been on that battlefield as it turned out to be that day. (45:14) And I want to frame my words carefully because it was not identified initially as a as a battlefield. (45:21) It was identified as an area where a significant threat existed.
(45:27) And it was the responsibility of Blackwater to kind of become the offensive line to protect the quarterback as the quarterback is is coming back into the green zone. (45:40) I mean, that was their that was their function on that day. (45:43) Knowing that there they were probably going to run into some kind of potential conflict.
(45:51) Right. (45:51) But all that being said, you don’t put someone who is unstable. (45:56) You don’t put someone who has a questionable history in a firefight when you know that there’s a very strong possibility that they’re not going to be able to react well in that situation.
(46:10) And unfortunately, the individual who came forward and made the statements that they made, that was really the the whole and the entirety of the government’s case was an individual that that probably never should have been there to begin with. (46:28) Yeah, you know, and I can’t really, you know, kind of make assumptions about his service today. (46:33) I do know that there was a very significant event that happened, like exactly a week prior to September 16, and that they were all engaged in.
(46:43) So, you know, there is absolutely the very real possibility that this man, you know, felt like he was up for it and even that he performed his duties, you know, honorably and reasonably for a long period of time I have no idea how long he was with the company before this event took place. (46:59) But at that event on that day, under those circumstances, based on everything he said and the way that evidence is leading his brain broke and I don’t want to, I don’t mean that in a mean way or anything like honestly I have so much forgiveness for this man, even with the situation that we’re in, because my heart hurts for what this man has had to be through and go through. (47:22) And if there’s forgiveness for all the things that I’ve done, then there’s forgiveness for the things that he’s done.
(47:28) Well, and I think that the effort here isn’t necessarily the vilification. (47:33) Sure. (47:33) The effort is to point to a fact and a truth and the fact and the truth is, is that this particular individual might well not have been the right person to be in that place at that time.
(47:46) And, and, you know, we’re not taking away from the fact that there were some tragic events that took place in the midst of all of this because of that. (47:55) Right. (47:56) But to vilify every individual.
(48:00) Right. (48:00) The collective, as it were, is, is also not a true carriage of justice in our country. (48:11) That we, we normally don’t act that way.
(48:15) Now, I know in a, in certain criminal events, you and I go to the bank, you don’t know that I’m going to go in and rob the bank. (48:22) You’re, you’re sitting in the car. (48:24) I come out, jump in the car and we take off.
(48:27) You don’t know what just happened. (48:30) You’re going to receive some charges as it relates to that. (48:33) But that’s not what we’re talking about in this case.
(48:37) No. (48:38) No. (48:38) And, you know, I think on the flip side of the same coin is that he really had established a pattern of being somebody who was untruthful.
(48:45) And, you know, people are complex. (48:46) Right. (48:47) So he lied on his application to get into Blackwater because he knew that if he expressed his formalized diagnosis of PTSD, he would not be accepted.
(48:56) And then, you know, obviously the, the many, many lies that took place throughout the progression of his testimony. (49:02) Because originally he said, you know, he had done nothing wrong. (49:05) And he said nobody did anything wrong.
(49:07) And then he says, OK, I didn’t do anything wrong, but these other guys did not tell you about it. (49:13) And then he says, OK, well, I see that you’re going to indict me. (49:18) I’ll take a plea deal instead of immunity and I’ll tell you all the things that these people did wrong.
(49:23) And he still maintains he did nothing wrong. (49:25) But they basically said, you know, look, you’ve pled guilty to manslaughter. (49:29) You’re actually going to have to admit that you killed someone.
(49:33) Did something. (49:34) Yes. (49:34) And I think the truly disturbing thing here is not necessarily the actions of one man.
(49:39) You know, I think that we’re all familiar that there’s just bad apples. (49:43) Right. He’s a bad apple.
But I think the truly concerning thing is, is that the FBI knew all along that this person was a liar. (49:51) Right. And there’s these things called giglio violations where you can’t put someone on the stand as a prosecutor if you know they’re a liar and they put him up there.
(50:02) Right. And so I’d love to circle back right now to what you were saying about being permitted to lie as part of, you know, really their kind of culture there, (50:10) because there was actually a young man that came and testified and his testimony was so drastically different than his initial statements and his statements for the grand jury that upon pressing, (50:21) he admitted that he lied and he said, but it’s fine because it’s permissible if it’s justified. (50:28) And he said in the courtroom that that was the case.
So the DOJ, before they ever put that guy on the stand, they knew he was lying. (50:36) They knew the drastic changes in his testimony. They put him up there anyway.
And they got reamed and he got kicked out of the court and his testimony was stricken from the record. (50:46) But what that doesn’t impact is all the other Iraqi witnesses who changed their stories drastically. And now all of a sudden they remember people’s hair colors.
(50:54) They wore helmets, by the way. Yeah. So they changed drastically.
But they just said, oh, you know, my memories changed over time. (51:00) They managed to play it off because they had been well coached. But this speaks to what one of my guests, Jay Christian Adams, talked about.
(51:08) Jay Christian Adams wrote a book called Injustice. He spent four years under John Ashcroft, one year under Holder. (51:15) And he talked about the difference and the change in the Department of Justice.
No longer did they follow the rule of law. (51:23) They followed arbitrary law, which meant that whatever Holder thought the law should be. (51:29) Whatever Obama thought the law should be, that is how they pursued the law.
(51:36) They tried people not based on whether they did anything right or wrong in reality, but based on whether or not Obama and Holder felt that what they did was wrong based on their worldview and whether or not it aligned or didn’t align. (51:54) And that has a lot to do, I think, with the cases that we’re dealing with in this conversation, because Obama came into office with the idea that Iraq was a bad war, even though I believe at one point he supported it. (52:11) But it was a bad war.
We shouldn’t have been there. We were the bad players. America was bad.
(52:17) He takes a tour right after he’s elected and runs around the world apologizing for the bad player that America is. (52:28) And here’s an example. Here’s an opportunity to try to create an example of bad Americans and behaving badly.
(52:40) And we’ve got to get a conviction on this. And seven years after the fact, they do. (52:46) Now we’re trying to bring out the truth.
What really happened? There’s going to be appeals that are going to take place. (52:56) Correct. (52:57) And the goal is, is to see the truth actually come out.
(53:02) What are a couple of the pieces of truth, Kristen, that as as we kind of close out just this segment, we’ll do more. (53:09) But what are a couple of the pieces of truth that you want Americans to understand? (53:16) Because, folks, this is about us as Americans as well. (53:22) This is about players in the White House, in the Department of Justice who have said America is bad and who continue to give our enemies fuel for that kind of attitude and mindset towards us while our allies shake their heads and say, why? (53:45) Yeah, and that is really what I want people to understand about this.
(53:49) Not only, you know, that my husband has been horribly, horribly victimized and abused by the same people that he was willing to give his life to protect. (53:59) That’s not the biggest tragedy here. (54:01) The biggest tragedy here is that if you become in a position where your conviction, your being jailed is going to benefit a political agenda, then you may as well get your financial affairs in order.
(54:17) Because this had absolutely nothing to do with innocence or guilt or a particular crime. (54:24) It had everything to do with proving that, A, we want to villainize Americans and, B, this whole Status of Forces Agreement thing. (54:34) The Status of Forces Agreement was being negotiated and the Iraqi government wanted to be able to prosecute and the American government said, no, we will.
(54:44) We will bring them to justice. (54:46) We will convict them. (54:47) We’ll show you that we’re going to do this.
(54:49) And they had to do it to make the Iraqis happy. (54:53) And so they will take the backs of American citizens and use them as pawns or commodities or assets with zero regard for their, you know, citizenship or liberty or, you know, even just morals. (55:09) I mean, basic moral and ethical guidelines and will offer them up as collateral for anybody who suits their political agenda.
(55:18) Well, and, you know, I’m thinking there’s no greater case to that. (55:24) Obama right now is. (55:29) He has.
(55:32) America’s allegiances away from Saudi Arabia, which actually has joined our coalition to try to put down ISIS, even though they’re Sunni. (55:43) He has shifted over to Iran. (55:45) And in recent news, he called in Pastor Saeed’s wife, who he has not had any time for the last six years.
(55:57) And now suddenly he has a meeting with her and says, oh, freeing your husband is the highest priority. (56:05) Folks, if you don’t think that that’s political, if you don’t think that now he’s going to try to appeal to all of the Christians out there who’ve been praying for Pastor Saeed, and I’m not saying we need to get that man home. (56:19) What Iran has done is horrific.
(56:22) It is horrific. (56:23) But he is going to use this as a political pawn piece in order to try to push to give the Shiites in Iran nuclear capabilities. (56:36) If that doesn’t alarm us, we’re asleep at the wheel.
(56:41) Is incredibly alarming. (56:43) And it’s I think it’s so alarming that not only is he going about that in a way that despises America, it’s just another in the pattern of not caring about its citizens and civilians at a large but on a personal level just to use people as pawns. (56:59) I mean, we are dispensable and disposable to this president.
(57:03) And and there are statements that we can go back and look at that clearly identify what he thinks of himself and what he thinks of the rest of us and and and the truth of the liar that he really is. (57:19) God bless you. (57:20) We’re going to be praying for you, folks.
(57:21) I just want to ask you to please keep Paul Slough and Kristen Slough and give us the names of the other. (57:28) Yes, very important. (57:29) So Justin Heard, Evan Liberty and Nick Slatton, and they’re all that’s the round out the four that are currently in jail awaiting sentencing.
(57:40) And when the sentencing takes place, then they’ll be moved to different facilities. (57:44) And that’s when the appeal process began. (57:46) So we have many, many great merits in our appeal.
(57:50) I think we’ve just been so burned by what has happened with the trial that it’s, you know, that even though our appeal is airtight, it’s so hard to put your hope in that. (58:00) So we’re going to put our hope in the Lord and we appreciate the prayer. (58:03) Amen.
Kristen, thank you so much for being with me today. (58:05) God bless you.
