Speaker 1: If it doesn't work, you're just not using enough. You're
Speaker 1: listening to Software Radio Special operations, military news and straight
Speaker 1: talk with the guys in the community. Hello and everyone,
Speaker 1: welcome back to Software Radio. I'm your host today, Steve
Speaker 1: bel Shurie. We have a great guest on the line
Speaker 1: with us, David Bull. Is it girl find or girlfriend? Girl? Fine? Girl? Fine,
Speaker 1: that's what I thought. Yeah, Uh, folks, Uh. Dave is
Speaker 1: the former Marine lieutenant colonel with a couple of combat
Speaker 1: tours under his belt. He is the CEO of United
Speaker 1: American Patriots. And we're gonna get into all that and
Speaker 1: and all the great things that they do, um and
Speaker 1: who they're supporting, and I think all of our listeners
Speaker 1: will definitely want to tune into this and get involved
Speaker 1: with what they're doing and donate. I think it's a
Speaker 1: great organization and we're gonna get into all that. But
Speaker 1: before we get any further, um, you know, we want
Speaker 1: to invite and uh welcome Bold to the podcast. Bold,
Speaker 1: thanks for taking the time with us this afternoon, and
Speaker 1: uh we uh we welcome you and we hope everything
Speaker 1: is going great today. Awesome, Steve, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you having me on. No, it's it's a pleasure. Um.
Speaker 1: So let's talk a little bit about your military career
Speaker 1: to start off with. I know that you enlisted in
Speaker 1: the Marines at seventeen, but then you went to Avio
Speaker 1: was a Candida school, And talk us a little bit
Speaker 1: about your military career. Yeah, I enlisted I was seventeen
Speaker 1: because I heard if you went to college you had
Speaker 1: to read books, and I wasn't planning on doing any
Speaker 1: of that at the time. So, UH enlisted. Ended up
Speaker 1: having a little battle with my dad over that, and
Speaker 1: he allowed me to go in the Marine Corps reserves
Speaker 1: so long as I went to college, and that was
Speaker 1: kind of the trade off. So I went to UH
Speaker 1: boot Camp Parris Island, South Carolina, and then UH, after
Speaker 1: finishing my training, went up to college. And so that
Speaker 1: was kind of an interesting experience, going straight as a
Speaker 1: boot enlisted marine, drinking the kool aid up into to
Speaker 1: a liberal college environment. So UH, definitely a unique experience.
Speaker 1: When I'm battling it out with our professors, some of
Speaker 1: whom said, yeah, I'm a communist and I think America
Speaker 1: is destroying the world. I'm like, excuse me, I'd like
Speaker 1: to make a comment there, so needless to state it
Speaker 1: was an interesting time in college. UH then got commissioned
Speaker 1: went on to become an infantry officer in the Marine Corps.
Speaker 1: UH served twenty five years with multiple combat and operational
Speaker 1: tours from Panama, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
Speaker 1: and ran around to a few other places like Korea
Speaker 1: and down to Africa. And and I just had had
Speaker 1: an awesome tour very uh, you know, very much operational
Speaker 1: and out. They're really getting to see, you know, the
Speaker 1: best of the best, serving with amazing marines who trained me,
Speaker 1: educated me. And UH really couldn't have asked for a
Speaker 1: better tour. And UH and I just have to make
Speaker 1: one correction since we are UH ten November's Marine Corps birthday,
Speaker 1: and UH, I just want to point out there are
Speaker 1: no former marines. We are all marines. Once a marine,
Speaker 1: always a marine, So we just want to make sure
Speaker 1: we keep that clear. And UH anyway, finished up my
Speaker 1: tour up on Capitol Hill. UH wasn't intending to go
Speaker 1: that way, but that was a part of helping us
Speaker 1: in up MARSK. Marine Special Operations commanded doing the planning
Speaker 1: with that, and General Hale at times said hey bull,
Speaker 1: great job. What do you want to do. I said, hey, boss,
Speaker 1: you know me, I want to lead these guys into
Speaker 1: the first fight to have. It was good, get up
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill and fight for money. SA. What bottom
Speaker 1: line is. I finished up on Capitol Hill representing MARSK
Speaker 1: and Special Operations Command making sure that MARSK and now
Speaker 1: the Raiders had all the funding necessary to resource all
Speaker 1: the missions that they're doing. So again, great career. Loved
Speaker 1: it and the only reason I retired is because I
Speaker 1: had a little girl on the way and decided to
Speaker 1: be a dad instead of going back to Afghanistan. So
Speaker 1: other than that, great tour and loved every minute of it.
Speaker 1: I've read in your bio you were din in Panama
Speaker 1: with that during just cards in the whole Noriaga mess. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was leading up to it. We were one of
Speaker 1: the infantry battalions down there that were setting the conditions
Speaker 1: for just cause. It was a part of the early stages,
Speaker 1: and our job was to actually conduct security and operational
Speaker 1: patrols out and around a couple of key installations in
Speaker 1: Panama against Penmanian Defense Force who were being advised by
Speaker 1: the Cubans at the time. Yep, I was stationed down
Speaker 1: there at the same time, so uh yeah, And it's
Speaker 1: a small country, so we pro probably weren't very far
Speaker 1: apart from each other. I was stationed the third of
Speaker 1: the seventh over for Davis, Panama, so yeah, yeah, so yeah,
Speaker 1: we uh as you as you know, that's such a
Speaker 1: small place, so we couldn't have been too far apart.
Speaker 1: And when I saw that, I just thought it was anting,
Speaker 1: but yeah, very interesting. Yeah, it was. It was a
Speaker 1: different time back then, wasn't it. I Mean a lot
Speaker 1: of things changed in the in the years after probably
Speaker 1: Desert Storm, which came the very next summer, you know,
Speaker 1: once all that kicked off, everything kind of changed. And
Speaker 1: the military that we have a lot better communications now
Speaker 1: than we did back then. Well that's that's definitely true.
Speaker 1: And I remember early on as a second lieutenant around
Speaker 1: I guess nine, you know, I started complaining to my
Speaker 1: company commander how I only had, you know, maybe about
Speaker 1: marines in my platoon and some of them were out
Speaker 1: doing various different Fleet assistant programs and all the rest,
Speaker 1: and these company commanders just laughed at me and said, hey.
Speaker 1: Before Reagan came around. You'd be lucky if you had
Speaker 1: a squat, so just be happy with the Marines you have.
Speaker 1: So it was definitely you know, turning point for the
Speaker 1: Marines leading up on and for all the armed forces
Speaker 1: leading up to the first call for war, without a doubt. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and things changed. I uh entered the military still into
Speaker 1: the Carter administration, So I'm dating myself there, but uh yeah,
Speaker 1: then then the Reagan years came along, and you know,
Speaker 1: I I became an officer myself in eighty nine, so
Speaker 1: that's uh, you know. But anyway, um, now that's that's
Speaker 1: very interesting. So yeah, we we probably passed each other
Speaker 1: on the highway a few times, no doubt. It was
Speaker 1: a great nice to be stationed. I have no complaints. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's a lot worse places in the world to be
Speaker 1: stationed in in Panama, so that's true. I wish we
Speaker 1: still had our bases down there so away at the
Speaker 1: time we were really allowed off base. We were brought
Speaker 1: down there by the ambassador. He requested Marines coming down
Speaker 1: there because unlike a lot of you guys were doing
Speaker 1: the training up in the Jungle Warfare Training Center, the
Speaker 1: rest of the soldiers were there with their their wives,
Speaker 1: their children, their cats, their dogs, in the whole nine yards.
Speaker 1: And Noriega felt there was no way the United States
Speaker 1: would get into a conflict with him down in Panama
Speaker 1: because he knew that he had the high ground around
Speaker 1: all these bases and would be able to take it.
Speaker 1: Would you know, basically threatened to slaughter everybody had the
Speaker 1: US decided to come in. And that was a part
Speaker 1: of the reason the Marines were sent down there, was
Speaker 1: we went down there, you know, just fully combat loaded,
Speaker 1: without any attachments, and we were able to patrol the
Speaker 1: jungles without having the concerns of having a family with
Speaker 1: us down there. And so that was a part of
Speaker 1: setting the stage for operations with just cause. Yeah, a
Speaker 1: lot of our guys who had been there a couple
Speaker 1: of years had their wives and kids station down there,
Speaker 1: and then they stopped that around it must have been
Speaker 1: the end of eight I would think, yeah, and uh,
Speaker 1: and then of course some of them, a lot of
Speaker 1: the families are still there. You know. It is what
Speaker 1: it is. So we all came through it and we're
Speaker 1: all better for it. So absolutely, So let's talk a
Speaker 1: little bit after your military career. Um, I know you
Speaker 1: went into you work for some defense industries. Tell us
Speaker 1: how you came about with you American Patriot? YEA, So
Speaker 1: it was interesting. I was approached probably about six years
Speaker 1: ago now by h my former battalion commander. He was
Speaker 1: an Italian commander when I was a second lieutenant, and
Speaker 1: I had a tremendous a man of respect. Still do
Speaker 1: I have a tremendous man respect for this officer, Lieutenant
Speaker 1: Colonel Bob Wyman. Uh. He's the chairman of United American
Speaker 1: Patriots and uh. He started talking to me about this organization,
Speaker 1: and literally I turned off when he was saying, these
Speaker 1: guys were convicted of war crimes and we're gonna sit
Speaker 1: here and fight for them. And as I just it
Speaker 1: didn't make sense that, you know, myself and he and
Speaker 1: many others had been to combat and none of our
Speaker 1: marines had ever committed a war crime, much less been
Speaker 1: accused of murder. And here these were many of these
Speaker 1: individuals were accused of murder and were found guilty under
Speaker 1: the U c m J by a military court martial.
Speaker 1: And in my mind was, hey, you know, if they're guilty,
Speaker 1: they're guilty, let let them rot. And it actually took
Speaker 1: him three years to try and get me on board.
Speaker 1: And uh, it was only after I went up on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill when they were putting on a presentation and
Speaker 1: I finally sat and listened to what was going on.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't a matter of guilt or innocence. It
Speaker 1: was a matter of individual warriors who were having their
Speaker 1: rights violated, and it was about being set up against
Speaker 1: very restrictive rules of engagement that put them in harm's way.
Speaker 1: It was a denial of the presumption of innocence. A
Speaker 1: lot of these cases that at the time were under
Speaker 1: the Obama administration where a lot of our warriors were
Speaker 1: pulled out of offensive missions and now we're in sort
Speaker 1: of these defensive positions where they were being accused of
Speaker 1: just about everything, and the US government was relying upon
Speaker 1: the Afghan government and basically just say, yeah, our guys
Speaker 1: are guilty, without ever finding out any of the details.
Speaker 1: And we would see time and again prosecutorial misconduct, which
Speaker 1: is where, for example, a sculptory information which is information
Speaker 1: that shows that an accused did not commit a crime,
Speaker 1: was being hidden. We would see uh, investigator abuse where
Speaker 1: these investigators were trying to find a way to convict
Speaker 1: individuals and aligned with the prosecution as opposed to trying
Speaker 1: to find the truth and the facts. We would find
Speaker 1: that there were other situations where unlawful command influence, where
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, the commands, whether it be at
Speaker 1: the highest level of a civilian leadership or all the
Speaker 1: way down at military leadership, we're stacking the decks against
Speaker 1: these warriors. And after I finally heard this, you know,
Speaker 1: I got pretty upset, and I was asked if I
Speaker 1: wanted to speak, and I did, and I don't know
Speaker 1: that I brought down fire and brimstone, but I was
Speaker 1: definitely emotional. And then after that, I was asked to
Speaker 1: be U a P. S CEO. And at the time,
Speaker 1: you know, my wife and I were looking at various
Speaker 1: different options in private industry that we're going to uh
Speaker 1: provide tremendous based salaries and equity and bonuses and all
Speaker 1: the rest, all the financial trappings of a business career.
Speaker 1: And UH talked to my wife about it, and I said, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, what do you think about us just jumping
Speaker 1: on U a P for about six months or a year,
Speaker 1: just trying to help mount up from a business standpoint,
Speaker 1: And UH, she could see that she was concerned because
Speaker 1: it wasn't quite what we had lined up at the time,
Speaker 1: and she thought about it, prayed about it, slept on it,
Speaker 1: and the next morning she goes, we have to do
Speaker 1: u a p and her perspective was, you know what,
Speaker 1: we can always make money. We can. We're doing fine
Speaker 1: where we are right now, but now let's focus on
Speaker 1: these warriors who are being unjustly accused of war crimes
Speaker 1: and let's take care of them. So it after about
Speaker 1: and that we we said this, it was only going
Speaker 1: to be a few months to a year, and now
Speaker 1: it's been nearly three years that we've been on board
Speaker 1: and it's uh, it's it's paid off. Just last year
Speaker 1: we're able to see the president part in three of
Speaker 1: the warriors we've been supporting. We had two warriors UH
Speaker 1: paroled and got out of prison, and then we have
Speaker 1: another another five where their cases were overturned. And we
Speaker 1: just keep fighting to make sure that our warriors rights
Speaker 1: are preserved. I know. And you know, it's funny you
Speaker 1: mentioned that because um, a lot of what you just
Speaker 1: said ran through with NEO. You know, we've all seen
Speaker 1: that the military justice system, when it comes to minor things,
Speaker 1: have made mistakes and we've seen that, but there was
Speaker 1: never any kind of I don't want to say like, uh,
Speaker 1: I guess I guess the correct word was of this
Speaker 1: kind of hope in magnitude where guys being convicted of
Speaker 1: murder and uh, you know, I was kind of the
Speaker 1: same way. You know, you read about these guys, Oh
Speaker 1: he's he's facing the court martial for murder and Afghan
Speaker 1: civilian or after you know, Afghan civilian, and you automatically think, well,
Speaker 1: they must have done it, you know. And then it
Speaker 1: wasn't until later on. Uh, I was emailing back and
Speaker 1: forth with the attorney for Clint Lauren through you guys
Speaker 1: were very very involved with his story, and then reading
Speaker 1: the transcript of everything that happened just absolutely blew me away.
Speaker 1: How the government actually tried to railroad this kid, Well
Speaker 1: they did. They did railroad it, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: They convicted him of murder. And here was a first
Speaker 1: lieutenant prior enlisted, so it wasn't just some you know,
Speaker 1: blute lieutenant. He had experience. He was a staff in
Speaker 1: SEO and uh he made a call in combat where uh,
Speaker 1: motorcycle with three Taliban we're heading towards his patrol and
Speaker 1: he told his soldiers to open up. They did, they
Speaker 1: killed two of three. His unit continued to be engaged.
Speaker 1: There wasn't a one time incident. It was there was
Speaker 1: actually a U. S. Army report, a SIGAC talking about
Speaker 1: how his unit was being set up for an ambush
Speaker 1: or an attack, and the government buried that. They didn't
Speaker 1: even introduce that as evidence. There was an aristatle operator
Speaker 1: I in the sky that was watching what was happening,
Speaker 1: and the operator even said he saw Taliban with a
Speaker 1: K forty seven icon radios. He was very specific in
Speaker 1: what he saw that were shadowing Clinton Rance's patrol at
Speaker 1: the time. And uh And yet the government pressed to
Speaker 1: get a conviction and they did, and in the courtroom
Speaker 1: they kept talking about how Clinton Rance killed civilians and
Speaker 1: he was found guilty. And when United American Patriots got involved,
Speaker 1: and we had we were supporting the legal team of
Speaker 1: John Marr and his legal team and had investigators over
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan run the biometrics on these so called civilians
Speaker 1: and as it turns out, they weren't civilians at all.
Speaker 1: That their DNA, their fingerprints, and other biometrics were all
Speaker 1: matching up with previous attacks on US soldiers from improvised
Speaker 1: explosive devices. So these guys had either wounded or killed
Speaker 1: other U S servicemen and in Zari, Afghanistan, they were
Speaker 1: taking tremendous casualties at the time. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: clint Rance took over a platoon that the platoona leader
Speaker 1: had actually been metavact with shrapnel wounds to his abdomen,
Speaker 1: face and eyes and that was just a couple of
Speaker 1: days prior to him taking over. So this was, you know,
Speaker 1: a pretty bad area. Clint made the right call, brought
Speaker 1: every one of his soldiers home alive, and the next
Speaker 1: thing you know, they just railroaded him. And if you
Speaker 1: look at the politics at the time, it was all
Speaker 1: because of the Obama administration trying to work with the
Speaker 1: cars Ie administration to reduce what was being accused of
Speaker 1: too many civilian casualties, who was on the back to
Speaker 1: back of multiple different incidents that were crazing creating a
Speaker 1: lot of political turmoil from US Marine snipers who had
Speaker 1: actually taken out the guys who had been harassing and
Speaker 1: harmy Marines and then pissing on their dead bodies and
Speaker 1: having that videotape that created an outrage. You had guards
Speaker 1: at Bobrom, Afghanistan taking away books that the inmates were
Speaker 1: writing notes in and passing around and burning them. And
Speaker 1: it turns out there were all Kurans, and so all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, this looked like a horrible attack against Islam,
Speaker 1: and that created an uproar both in the United States
Speaker 1: and Afghanistan. And then you had Bob Bale's where he
Speaker 1: he supposedly killed sixteen civilians and that that's a whole
Speaker 1: separate case we could talk about. And again, nobody's no evidence.
Speaker 1: It was all the Afghan word on what happened. And
Speaker 1: so it was one thing after another leading up to this,
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden, Clint lawrants situation happened
Speaker 1: and they're like, you know what, we just have to
Speaker 1: settle this. And a lot of it was that they
Speaker 1: were not going to sign that Afghan government and the
Speaker 1: US we're not going to sign the Status of Forces Agreement,
Speaker 1: which is a major legal agreement between countries as to
Speaker 1: who will handle who handle handle criminal cases should they
Speaker 1: occur with US military serving overseas, and that agreement was
Speaker 1: not signed until both Bob Bales and Clint Lawrants were
Speaker 1: found guilty of murder and so there was a lot
Speaker 1: of political pressure there and it wasn't until all of
Speaker 1: this was brought up and briefed out to the President
Speaker 1: United States that he was able to see through what
Speaker 1: was actually happening and it was really a political lynching
Speaker 1: and Clinton Rance received a pardon from the President. So,
Speaker 1: you know, these are the type of cases that that
Speaker 1: are shocking that you can't really believe that our US
Speaker 1: government would do this against our own U S. Servicemen,
Speaker 1: people who raise their hand to support and defend our rights,
Speaker 1: and yet they aren't getting the same rights as you know,
Speaker 1: some some civilian that might go into a school and
Speaker 1: start gunning down children, that that individual will get more
Speaker 1: rights than the US military person. So that that's basically
Speaker 1: what U A. P stands for is defending the rights
Speaker 1: of our defenders. Yeah, and you know again because we
Speaker 1: had him on the podcast as fall after, he was
Speaker 1: hard and um, it was just absolutely I mean, it
Speaker 1: was mind boggling when you read about everything, like you
Speaker 1: you the sky they were you know, they were making
Speaker 1: a report that this union is about, i mean, the
Speaker 1: guy to what Taliban bombmakers, all of this information will
Speaker 1: available in the prosecution and they wouldn't allow to be shared.
Speaker 1: It's exactly right, and not to mention that every one
Speaker 1: of these soldiers in his unit were accused of murder.
Speaker 1: And then they came around and said, all right, look,
Speaker 1: we'll give you all amnesty so long as and and
Speaker 1: then the commanding officer of the convening authority ordered them
Speaker 1: to testify against Clint Laurance. And you know, so it's
Speaker 1: there's a lot they went on here that is just
Speaker 1: really bind boggling. It's and and it's frustrating. There's there's
Speaker 1: a lot of challenges with the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
Speaker 1: and you know, at the strategic level, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of things that need to be changed. But down at
Speaker 1: the tactical level, we're seeing time and time again our
Speaker 1: warriors are just not getting a fair shake, absolutely, and
Speaker 1: there's too many of them. Because you're looking at your website,
Speaker 1: I mean you're looking at all the guys that you've
Speaker 1: been working with. It's, uh, it is mind boggling, and
Speaker 1: it's awful. But so um, I know that you've had
Speaker 1: quite a few success stories and uh, you know, we
Speaker 1: thought we talked at the length about Clint, because you know,
Speaker 1: I had got personally interested in that case. Um has
Speaker 1: John hardly been released yet. I'm sorry I say that again,
Speaker 1: John Hatley, Yeah, John Hatley. We were able to get
Speaker 1: him clemency. He was put away from murder as well.
Speaker 1: We got him clemency and then pardoned or supported him
Speaker 1: getting clemency and pardon, and he got out and I
Speaker 1: think it's just been about a month ago now and
Speaker 1: it's back home with his family, got married, and he's
Speaker 1: doing well. And here's you know, here's here's a perfect situation.
Speaker 1: Here's you know, not just some young PFC that gets
Speaker 1: caught up in something. This is a first sergeant, highly
Speaker 1: decorated first sergeant. This guy was the guy who was
Speaker 1: out on multiple combat patrols, who was actually in hundreds
Speaker 1: of firefights. And as a first sergeant, you know, we
Speaker 1: all know those guys who are out there leading the fight,
Speaker 1: and then we know those who tend to sit back
Speaker 1: in the rear. This guy was out there with every patrol,
Speaker 1: leading the way. And whenever there was a young lieutenant
Speaker 1: that would come into the command, you know, he would
Speaker 1: say to the battalion commander, hey, let me take him out.
Speaker 1: So he gets some experience before he goes down there
Speaker 1: with his soldiers, because you know, when I take him out,
Speaker 1: we're going to get into a firefight and and share enough,
Speaker 1: that's what would happen. And so he was he was
Speaker 1: a warrior, you know, still is a warrior, but on
Speaker 1: the battlefield he was fearless. And what ended up happening
Speaker 1: was he ended up getting convicted of murdering four detainees.
Speaker 1: And the crime was horrific where he grabbed these four
Speaker 1: people out of the village, drove him down to to
Speaker 1: this farm by the side of a canal, and had
Speaker 1: his soldiers basically shoot them execution style, and then kicked
Speaker 1: them into the canal and took off. Horrific, horrific crime
Speaker 1: if it actually happened. And that's the problem is that
Speaker 1: in that situation they actually had c I d go
Speaker 1: out and talk to the guy who owned the farm
Speaker 1: and said, to you, tell us about when these guys
Speaker 1: came onto your farm. And they said, nobody ever came
Speaker 1: onto my farm. And they're like, well, maybe they did.
Speaker 1: You didn't know it. He goes, no, I would have known.
Speaker 1: And they said, well, do you mind if we look
Speaker 1: around help yourself, and they went out and they looked
Speaker 1: at the location where supposedly these four individuals were killed,
Speaker 1: you know, and they looked in the grass of the dirt,
Speaker 1: and they tried to find any sort of forensic evidence
Speaker 1: like maybe blood, spelladder, or bullets or shell casings or something. Nothing. Well,
Speaker 1: they figured, all right, well maybe it all, you know,
Speaker 1: let's go get the bodies out of the canal. They
Speaker 1: put divers into the canal and they they dredge that.
Speaker 1: They searched that thing and guess what not one body,
Speaker 1: not one bullet, not one casing, not one piece of clothing,
Speaker 1: not one bit of physical evidence. Well, he said, all right, well,
Speaker 1: let's go to the village then that apparently these civilians
Speaker 1: were taken out of, or these detainees were taken out of,
Speaker 1: and they said, is anybody missing? People said no, well
Speaker 1: did anybody get killed? No? Like, well, listen, we have
Speaker 1: money here, you know, we we're gonna pay you if
Speaker 1: your family members were killed, they said, when none of
Speaker 1: our family members were killed. So there was no physical
Speaker 1: evidence whatsoever. And yet they found him guilty all based
Speaker 1: upon testimony of another individual who is being held accountable
Speaker 1: for crimes, and just the crimes were not as as sexy,
Speaker 1: let's say, as murder and so at the prosecution and
Speaker 1: the c I D all focused on this, this horrific
Speaker 1: murder case instead of really focusing on the problem of
Speaker 1: this one individ to a line and they coerced other
Speaker 1: junior enlisted soldiers to testify, and they said this never happened.
Speaker 1: And they produced documents saying that the first sergeant said
Speaker 1: you did it, and here's his signature. They were all
Speaker 1: faked documents with forged signatures. And unfortunately, John Hatley, again,
Speaker 1: this highly decorative warrior, was put away from murder and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, to meet him, though his spirit is unbroken,
Speaker 1: he still loves his country, still loves the army, doesn't
Speaker 1: like what happened to him through the U C MJ.
Speaker 1: But he's never admitted guilt and he never will because
Speaker 1: you know, they kept trying to hold up said listen,
Speaker 1: we're gonna shorten your sentence this and the other thing
Speaker 1: if you admit guilty. Because I can't. I'm I'm a
Speaker 1: staff n seal in the United States Army. I can't
Speaker 1: perjure my integrity for my own personal well being, so
Speaker 1: I can't make up a lie. I can't say I
Speaker 1: did something I didn't and uh, fortunately we were able
Speaker 1: to get him out, but you know, he spent nearly
Speaker 1: a dozen years in prison, and that these are the
Speaker 1: type of things that they're shocking when you get into
Speaker 1: the details. And we we were able to present this
Speaker 1: to a bunch of congressmen who were shocked themselves. The
Speaker 1: you know where it gets worse, though, is that the U. S.
Speaker 1: Army circles the wagons when all of a sudden they're challenged,
Speaker 1: as opposed to saying, hold on a second, let's let's
Speaker 1: make sure we've got this right. And Congressman Flores Uh
Speaker 1: out of Texas, he was one of the key congressmen
Speaker 1: who really took up the battle early on, and the
Speaker 1: family of John Hatley said, you know, sir, will you
Speaker 1: please look into this, And being you know, very intelligent
Speaker 1: and well read congressman, he said, all right, you know, certainly,
Speaker 1: I'll meet with you. But he did his due diligence first,
Speaker 1: and he met with the army. He found out all
Speaker 1: the details, and when he met with the family, he
Speaker 1: found out there were two separate facts, if you will,
Speaker 1: there was two separate realities, and it upset Congressman Flores
Speaker 1: because he saw that what the U. S. Army was
Speaker 1: telling him just wasn't true and the evidence just wasn't there.
Speaker 1: And he really led the fight, and we had Congressman
Speaker 1: Gohmert got on board, and we now have what's called
Speaker 1: Justice for Warriors Caucus up on Capitol Hill with about
Speaker 1: a dozen congressmen who are really looking into all of
Speaker 1: these injustices to make sure that our warriors when they enlist,
Speaker 1: when they get commissioned, when they go into combat, they're
Speaker 1: gonna have their rights preserved and that even if they
Speaker 1: do something wrong, they will have their rights preserved. And
Speaker 1: that's really the key here that I couldn't agree with
Speaker 1: you more there, because that's, uh, that's the most important thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, whether they're guilty or not, and the one
Speaker 1: thing that our system always guarantees the right to a
Speaker 1: fair trial. And you know what I'm reading about a
Speaker 1: lot of these guys, and they catch exactly. And so
Speaker 1: let me talk to you about your organization a little bit. Um. Now,
Speaker 1: how how does the ua T go about helping these
Speaker 1: guys that obviously need your help. I know your your
Speaker 1: backgrounds the infantry officer, but do you have awful lawyers
Speaker 1: on board, you know. So it's interesting. So our mission
Speaker 1: is to make sure that we inform the President, Congress,
Speaker 1: in the public that we fund the legal representation, and
Speaker 1: then eventually we try to support the reintegration of our
Speaker 1: warriors who were wrongfully accused and unjustly convicted war crimes.
Speaker 1: So we don't have any lawyers actually on board. And
Speaker 1: the reason that is is that our warriors we support
Speaker 1: them directly, but they can't afford civilian lawyers. They would
Speaker 1: have to mortgage their homes, they would have to you know, beg. Barnes,
Speaker 1: steal from their family, they would have to do whatever
Speaker 1: it is and most of and they still would fall short.
Speaker 1: So we say, look, you can choose whichever attorney you want,
Speaker 1: and then we will provide the financial support not just
Speaker 1: for that attorney, but for any investigative work, any reports,
Speaker 1: anything that goes into supporting your case. So that way
Speaker 1: we don't interfere with the attorney client privilege. And yet
Speaker 1: at the same time, we work very closely with the
Speaker 1: attorneys making sure that they're providing us information that we
Speaker 1: can share with our elected representatives, and we also make
Speaker 1: sure that as they're trying to do various different things.
Speaker 1: They're coordinating with us and say, look, we we need
Speaker 1: you know, this sort of demonstrative report or demonstrate or
Speaker 1: a graphic or whatever, and we try to figure out
Speaker 1: how to support that. So our job really is, in
Speaker 1: a sense of marketing arm trying to get this word
Speaker 1: out to the public, because we're all based on charitable donations,
Speaker 1: and unlike some of the other organizations out there that
Speaker 1: have multimillionaires and billionaires that throw in millions of dollars
Speaker 1: behind them, we're out there dealing with a grassroot movement
Speaker 1: where you know, we we have hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: individuals who are chipping in an average of about thirty
Speaker 1: nine dollars apiece. And you know, quite frankly, you know,
Speaker 1: our our biggest supporters tend to be what I say
Speaker 1: is Grandmind Peoria, who's you know, these these patriotic people
Speaker 1: in the heartland who are just like you know, we're
Speaker 1: not going to allow this to happen to our warriors.
Speaker 1: And the more people find out, the more donations we
Speaker 1: get from across the board. Uh, you know, I think
Speaker 1: our largest individual donation was for thirty thousand dollars, which
Speaker 1: is tremendous but that's very rare. We've had, you know,
Speaker 1: a couple of others that have provided ten thousand dollars
Speaker 1: and other than that, though, really it's it's chips here
Speaker 1: and there, and part of that goes towards us, I said,
Speaker 1: providing that legal representation, but also making sure we're communicating
Speaker 1: up on Capitol Hill and making sure our elected representatives
Speaker 1: know what's going on. Yeah, and when you're dealing with investigations,
Speaker 1: a lot of these cases are I mean, let's they're
Speaker 1: going to be in Afghanistan, Iraq or wherever. It's not
Speaker 1: going to be cheaper investigation because I'm sure and like
Speaker 1: you mentioned earlier, the army kind of circles the wagons
Speaker 1: that have they been cooperative the military and some of
Speaker 1: these investigations or is it kind of a yeah, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't imagine. I wouldn't imagine they had been not at all.
Speaker 1: And and they, you know, they go out of the
Speaker 1: way to hinder investigations. We saw Army Special Forces Matt Goldstein,
Speaker 1: who you know, here here's another great warrior who was
Speaker 1: was doing everything he's supposed to be doing, and all
Speaker 1: of a sudden they accused him of killing a detainee,
Speaker 1: which was not the case. And this case went on
Speaker 1: for years, and uh, it just the U. S. Government
Speaker 1: just said, we're gonna find more evidence. We're gonna find
Speaker 1: more evidence, and they sent an investigator over to Afghanistan
Speaker 1: to get more evidence. And I sat in on the
Speaker 1: Motions hearing where this investigator he was being questioned, and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, they asked him like, so these individuals that
Speaker 1: you that you questioned, like, yes, these were family members
Speaker 1: of the individual that met goals the quote unquote murdered
Speaker 1: and uh they said he was not Taliban. And so
Speaker 1: the question was, well, how did you know these were
Speaker 1: family members? They said, oh, well the locals told us
Speaker 1: that they were. Like okay, well the locals there are
Speaker 1: all Taliban, so certainly you check their i D. And
Speaker 1: they said, well no, they didn't have any I D.
Speaker 1: But wait a second. You brought them onto a U. S.
Speaker 1: Military base. How could you do that. You can't bring
Speaker 1: random people onto a US military base. And we have
Speaker 1: tremendous biometric databases to ensure that we're not bringing enemy
Speaker 1: combatants on the base. Well that's true, but they didn't
Speaker 1: have ideas. We just brought them on. And then it
Speaker 1: gets worse. Then they sat them in the same room
Speaker 1: and they started questioning them. And the question to the investigators,
Speaker 1: wait this secain, is that the best practice? Well, no,
Speaker 1: the best practices the interview and interrogate people individually. But
Speaker 1: we we didn't have a lot of room at the time,
Speaker 1: and we didn't have a lot of people that we
Speaker 1: could use to separate them. Like, wait a second, this
Speaker 1: is a capital murder case that you're running against one
Speaker 1: of our most highly decorated special operators, and you couldn't
Speaker 1: find one other soldier to detain one of these quote
Speaker 1: unquote witnesses while you interrogated one at a time. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it couldn't happen time that. It was every
Speaker 1: excuse you could imagine. And so the defense was great,
Speaker 1: now we want to go over there and and interview
Speaker 1: these same people. We can't do that because of secure
Speaker 1: already in a million and one other reasons, and it's
Speaker 1: just it's one of these things where they they have
Speaker 1: all of the resources at their disposal, and only if
Speaker 1: they want to share those resources will the defense get
Speaker 1: the ability to go overseas, have the security and be
Speaker 1: able to conduct interviews or investigations and all the rest.
Speaker 1: So it's it's very challenging and we see it time
Speaker 1: and again where you know, many cases there are no
Speaker 1: bodies presented, so there's no forensics, so you can't really tell,
Speaker 1: you know, how the individual died. We said a first
Speaker 1: Lieutenant Michael Behenna, which was a unique case in that
Speaker 1: in that case they actually did have the body and
Speaker 1: they actually did conduct forensics. And Behenna was accused of
Speaker 1: murdering this individual. And Behenna said, no, I acted in
Speaker 1: self defense. And so the prosecution hired a forensic expert,
Speaker 1: one of the best in the country, and he went
Speaker 1: and said, based upon the forensics, Michael Behanna is telling
Speaker 1: the truth. It shows that the bullet wounds are consistent
Speaker 1: with Michael Behenna acting in self defense. So what the
Speaker 1: government do. They fired that expert and they buried that report,
Speaker 1: and that report never came to trial, and it wasn't
Speaker 1: until later on under appeal that all of this was
Speaker 1: dug up. And you know, fortunately Michael Behanna, another great warrior, uh,
Speaker 1: the President United States pardoned him because this is not
Speaker 1: we we we we should not can be conducting kangaroo courts.
Speaker 1: The rule of law must come paramount and basically the warriors,
Speaker 1: though they actually fall under the laws of war, which
Speaker 1: are much different from even the rules of law. But
Speaker 1: we see this time and again and it's and those
Speaker 1: are the type of things where the government has to
Speaker 1: know there's a watchdog that's gonna be checking everything that's
Speaker 1: happening here, and that's United American Patriots and the hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of people supporting us that are saying, look,
Speaker 1: if you want to find someone guilty, that's fine, we
Speaker 1: support that. We do not support you violating an individual's rights,
Speaker 1: especially not a warrior's rights. And I wanted to ask
Speaker 1: you about there was one case that I had never
Speaker 1: heard of before, and that was first Lieutenant Sean Blair.
Speaker 1: And uh, you know, reading through your website, I never
Speaker 1: remember seeing this, uh in any of the stuff that
Speaker 1: you see on the news or in publications or wherever.
Speaker 1: Can you fill us in a little bit about that,
Speaker 1: you know? I apologize I can't really talk in detail
Speaker 1: about Blair's case because that happened long before I came
Speaker 1: on board, so I don't know the details, and I
Speaker 1: don't want to screw that up. Okay, that's fine. That
Speaker 1: was just the one that that stood out because I
Speaker 1: had never heard of that, uh that case before, but
Speaker 1: I know that they eventually got the charges dismissed, which
Speaker 1: is a good thing. Um absolutely now uh u A
Speaker 1: he started one back in two thousand five, and it
Speaker 1: was a former Marine Corps officer that started it. Am
Speaker 1: I right, that's true. It was actually uh Major Donahue
Speaker 1: built Donna Hue. Uh. He was a Vietnam era marine,
Speaker 1: multiple purple hearts, multiple decorations, Bronze Star, silver star. Uh.
Speaker 1: Just a true warrior. Actually caught a round to the
Speaker 1: jaw as he was a doorgunner doing an extract one time.
Speaker 1: And uh just an incredible individual who in two thousand
Speaker 1: and five he saw the Haditha and Hamdania Marines being
Speaker 1: marched around at orange jumpsuits and shackles, and we had
Speaker 1: congressmen calling them murderers, jack murder. But you know, he
Speaker 1: was sitting here, you know, and he's a former marine.
Speaker 1: He is one of the few former marines. Everybody else
Speaker 1: wants a marine, always marine. But a lot of people
Speaker 1: feel he gave up his uh title once he started
Speaker 1: calling people murderers before they had even had their rig
Speaker 1: is pressed against them. This was all here saying a
Speaker 1: lot of stories at the time, and and that's, you know,
Speaker 1: an example of the highest level of unlawful command influence. So, um,
Speaker 1: what happened was Major Donohue came along and said, now
Speaker 1: that's not happening, and he actually mortgaged this house to
Speaker 1: get this organization started. And uh, it took a long
Speaker 1: time for it to start gaining momentum. But he's still
Speaker 1: around and he's a great individual. And he and I
Speaker 1: talked probably about once once a week or so, and
Speaker 1: right now he's going he's got some medical challenges, but
Speaker 1: he's a tough fighter and he's not going anywhere. It's
Speaker 1: good to hear. And you know, it's amazing that we
Speaker 1: have this many cases uh that's going on with our military.
Speaker 1: And I know, you know, we've been in combat for
Speaker 1: a very long time, but there shouldn't be this many
Speaker 1: cases that are out there's not having um the correct
Speaker 1: amount of protection under our laws. Because that's the absolutely
Speaker 1: explain to our listeners how they can go about and help,
Speaker 1: how they can possibly volunteer if they want to get involved. Absolutely, so,
Speaker 1: first of all, whenever we have, uh, anybody who wants
Speaker 1: to get involved, and we get phone calls quite often
Speaker 1: people who have interesting backgrounds, whether they be investigators, whether
Speaker 1: they be people who have contacts a lot of times,
Speaker 1: right now we're talking to some interesting people in Hollywood
Speaker 1: who are working on trying to do documentaries and actually
Speaker 1: full feature films of some of the warriors that were
Speaker 1: supporting and trying to get the word out there. Uh So,
Speaker 1: any any time somebody has a connection or network that
Speaker 1: might be beneficial where they can find people with influence
Speaker 1: who can help out. Certainly, we we welcome people calling in. Uh.
Speaker 1: Donations obviously are always appreciated. U AP dot org. That's
Speaker 1: our website, you AP dot org, and it's it's very
Speaker 1: easy to donate there. You can donate generally or can
Speaker 1: donate to an individual group of warriors and uh it's
Speaker 1: uh you know, we also have people you know that
Speaker 1: are local in uh Northern Virginia that come in and
Speaker 1: volunteer to help out with going through our mail, making
Speaker 1: phone calls on our behalf and just trying to support
Speaker 1: as best they can. So Bill tell us about some
Speaker 1: of the other cases that are ongoing with the with
Speaker 1: the U A P. And how our listeners can get
Speaker 1: involved and let people know that they're supporting all of
Speaker 1: our warriors that are out there. Certainly. So one of
Speaker 1: the cases that's relatively unique to uh U a P
Speaker 1: is the case in support of the MARSOC three. And
Speaker 1: that's how we refer to them. It's two gunnery sergeants
Speaker 1: and one Navy chief, all three who are raiders who
Speaker 1: with the Marine Special Operations Command. And this is a
Speaker 1: unique case in that, UH, they actually there was an
Speaker 1: incident in which they had an aggressor going against them,
Speaker 1: and UH alcohol was involved on the suggressor's part and
Speaker 1: he was being a little bit too aggressive that the
Speaker 1: instigator he was pulled out of the bar that they
Speaker 1: were in. And it's all actually having an or beal
Speaker 1: Iraq and UH it's uh strange that you know, here
Speaker 1: in the Iraq, which is considered in essence of combat zone,
Speaker 1: this was a relatively safe place and that UH soldiers
Speaker 1: brains were allowed off base and this was New Year's
Speaker 1: and they were allowed out for a bit and next
Speaker 1: thing you know, incident happens. Navy Chief Gilman he was
Speaker 1: being harassed by this civilian contractor who actually used to
Speaker 1: be a former Army Special Forces and UH he was
Speaker 1: escorted out of the bar, and next thing you know,
Speaker 1: the the raiders were asked to hold and you know,
Speaker 1: let him kind of take off so there wouldn't be
Speaker 1: the incident. They were kind of waiting outside for a fight,
Speaker 1: and they finally walked away. And as there as the
Speaker 1: raiders left, Chief Gilness telling Gunnery Satan, Danny drey Or
Speaker 1: what happened and that some sort of a conflict was here.
Speaker 1: You know, Gunnery Star and dre are been a good
Speaker 1: senior staff an. CEO said all right, well, we can't
Speaker 1: have conflicts. We're all sitting out here working together for
Speaker 1: the same mission against real bad guys. So he decides
Speaker 1: to go over and talk to this contractor and basically say, hey,
Speaker 1: you know what's going on, let's knock this off. And
Speaker 1: the contractor didn't take kindly to it. Was very aggressive,
Speaker 1: started poking Gunnery Start and Dreyer in the chest. It's
Speaker 1: kind of yelling and spitting on him, and next thing
Speaker 1: you know, he makes this aggressive move towards him. Danny
Speaker 1: Dryer pushes him away and uh, next thing you know,
Speaker 1: his contractor comes at Danny Dryer swings hits him twice,
Speaker 1: and Danny's kind of shocked because he's like, you know,
Speaker 1: what the hell is going on. One of the other
Speaker 1: raiders Gunnery Start didn't have grown Josh the grown about
Speaker 1: a hundred fifty five pounds, small guy, you know, half
Speaker 1: the size of his contractor. And Danny heat steps in
Speaker 1: this contractor. Once contractor goes down, and uh, basically the
Speaker 1: you know, all the contractors friends, they kind of say
Speaker 1: all right, well whatever, and they kind of walk off.
Speaker 1: And yet you got these three raiders. You know, these
Speaker 1: guys were born to serve. You know, these are some
Speaker 1: of the best of the best, you know, and listening
Speaker 1: to the Marines then we're forced reconnaissance Marines and then
Speaker 1: went on to be raiders. I mean, there's some of
Speaker 1: the best of the best we have. Uh. They they're like,
Speaker 1: all right, we're not leaving this guy in the street,
Speaker 1: you know, and inter rack. You know, even even if
Speaker 1: you know he was intoxicated and was acting a little
Speaker 1: bit too aggressive, you know, we're gonna take care of
Speaker 1: this guy. They bring him back to their barracks there
Speaker 1: and it wasn't barracks, I guess the garrison where they
Speaker 1: were staying. And Chief Kilman, who was a senior medical
Speaker 1: adviser at the time. You know, here's a special uh
Speaker 1: independent duty corman, special operations independent duty corman. You know,
Speaker 1: one of the again one of the best trained medical
Speaker 1: advisors we have or practitioners, i should say. He assesses
Speaker 1: him and says, look, all his vitals are good, everything's fine,
Speaker 1: but just put him in the rack. Let's like, let's
Speaker 1: watch him for a bit and make sure he's stabilized,
Speaker 1: which he was, and then they advised one of the
Speaker 1: other contractors keep an eye on him. And at a
Speaker 1: certain point, apparently the contractors stopped breathing and the other
Speaker 1: contractor grabbed Chief Gilman and the rest they came and
Speaker 1: tried doing some heroic life savings steps on this guy
Speaker 1: and they met of act him out. He end up
Speaker 1: going to land Still, Germany, and unfortunately, four days later
Speaker 1: he died and the determination was he asphyxiated. He grew
Speaker 1: up and end up swallowing his own vomit into his
Speaker 1: lungs and died. Horrific situation like this is not uh no,
Speaker 1: nobody's celebrating, like, hey, the Marines beat up Special Forces guy,
Speaker 1: Like not at all. This was a horrible situation. But
Speaker 1: there was again a rush to judgment to where all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, the commanding general of Marsock General you uh, he,
Speaker 1: he's sitting here, you know, making condolences to the family,
Speaker 1: goes to the funeral of this contractor, and the rumors
Speaker 1: start spreading that these raiders basically had boot stomped this
Speaker 1: contractor and three of them against one and they beat
Speaker 1: him up and it was, you know, this drunken murder,
Speaker 1: and it was just the stories were horrific, and yet
Speaker 1: again there there was no assessment of what actually had happened.
Speaker 1: Yet and before you know it, these three raiders they
Speaker 1: lose their security clearances that pulled out of there there,
Speaker 1: out of the line. So they're not even doing what
Speaker 1: the supposed to be doing there, you know, basically working
Speaker 1: in the barracks, work in the gym, working you know,
Speaker 1: basically handing out crap in the hospital. And nobody had
Speaker 1: actually even asked them what had happened. Again, it was
Speaker 1: a presumption of guilt. And a lot of this goes
Speaker 1: to the you know, sort of the misconception and the
Speaker 1: prejudice against our special operators that you know, these guys
Speaker 1: are cowboys and you know they don't abide by the rules.
Speaker 1: We need to tighten them up, they need more discipline.
Speaker 1: And you know, here's an example of you know, we're
Speaker 1: going to make an example of these three guys, like
Speaker 1: this is not what you do when you walk base.
Speaker 1: You don't get into fights. You don't do it. But
Speaker 1: they didn't start the fight, and they acted appropriately every
Speaker 1: step of the way, trying to de escalate the situation
Speaker 1: and even caring for this individual. Now, now, how do
Speaker 1: we know that that's the case, because all of this
Speaker 1: was captured on security cameras and you see step by
Speaker 1: step that every step of the way, even inside the bar,
Speaker 1: outside talking to them, that at every point of the
Speaker 1: way they were trying to de escalate the situation. They
Speaker 1: were not trying to create a fight. And yet the
Speaker 1: prosecutors came in here, uh, they've charged these three with manslaughter,
Speaker 1: and they're trying to hold them accountable, you know, and
Speaker 1: the article thirty two here, and even the judge says,
Speaker 1: you know, this looks like it might be a case
Speaker 1: of self defense or defense of others, and yet they're
Speaker 1: moving forward with a court martial. And you know, it's
Speaker 1: one of these things where the presumption of guilt is
Speaker 1: holding over these guys as opposed to the commanders saying
Speaker 1: we're gonna go with the presumption of innocence. And a
Speaker 1: part of that is the commanders could easily say, well,
Speaker 1: you know what, I did, the right thing. I referred
Speaker 1: to to court marshal. You know, well, it will allow
Speaker 1: the facts to play out there, as opposed to saying,
Speaker 1: you know what, from everything I see, I'm gonna make
Speaker 1: a command decision because I am a commander who has
Speaker 1: been put here supposedly because I know how to make
Speaker 1: the right decisions. And yet when it comes to legal
Speaker 1: matters or administrative matters, we defer to the courts. And unfortunately,
Speaker 1: depending on you know, where you are, in various different conflicts,
Speaker 1: we've seen up the condition rates court martials that the
Speaker 1: system is so lopsided that you're basically condemning these guys.
Speaker 1: You're you're not giving them a fair fight. And and
Speaker 1: just to kind of go into why that is that
Speaker 1: in cases where you've got court martials concerning murder that
Speaker 1: you don't need a unanimous jury, you only need three
Speaker 1: quarters of the jury, and other cases you only need
Speaker 1: two thirds of the jury. And why is that really bad?
Speaker 1: Because again, that's the presumption of guilt. You're not giving
Speaker 1: these guys the benefit of the doubt that you don't
Speaker 1: give them the present presumption of innocence as a civilian
Speaker 1: court does. Secondly, where it's frustrating is that the convening authority,
Speaker 1: the one who's calling this court martial, he presents the
Speaker 1: soldiers or marines who are gonna be sitting on the
Speaker 1: trials court martial in the jury and so the deck
Speaker 1: is getting stacked to begin with. And why this is
Speaker 1: really terrible as if you think about it, if you
Speaker 1: know I as it, retired marine or any civilian gets
Speaker 1: selected for jury duty out in the civilian world, we
Speaker 1: will go, we'll sit there in the jury, will listen
Speaker 1: to the facts, and we'll make a determination based upon
Speaker 1: how we assess the facts and perhaps our own moral
Speaker 1: or ethical convictions, and will come out and we'll say
Speaker 1: it is it are guilty or guilty not guilty. But
Speaker 1: that's not the case in the military because there's another
Speaker 1: factor that comes into play, and that factor is how
Speaker 1: will my decision impact my career? How will it impact
Speaker 1: my personal life. Now, this is a very different situation
Speaker 1: because that shouldn't come into play at all, but it does.
Speaker 1: Because let's say you're one of the one third that
Speaker 1: finds someone not guilty, and let's say your boss happens
Speaker 1: to be sitting on that panel on that jury. Now,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, the boss is going to go
Speaker 1: back to the convening authority and say, hey, just what, girlfriend,
Speaker 1: I'm questioning his judgment. You know, he he thought they
Speaker 1: were not guilty. Obviously, you commanding General thought they were
Speaker 1: guilty because you referred them to court martial. I voted
Speaker 1: for them to be guilty, and and they were found guilty.
Speaker 1: But girlfriend, I'm not so sure about him. And to
Speaker 1: think that that won't impact someone's career when it's within
Speaker 1: the same command, especially in the tight enit special operations community,
Speaker 1: that could be a kiss of death. So I'd like
Speaker 1: to believe that any of our warriors that are sitting
Speaker 1: on juries are going to make the right ethical decision,
Speaker 1: regardless of how it would impact them personally. However, you
Speaker 1: just don't know that to be true, and you just
Speaker 1: don't realize that, you know what, somebody might have to
Speaker 1: pay a mortgage and them losing their career. That might
Speaker 1: hurt that. And so now they're thinking about their family,
Speaker 1: their house, their dog, their cat. Again not none of
Speaker 1: that should play into a decision that's going to determine
Speaker 1: the fate of someone else's life. And this is really challenging.
Speaker 1: And this kind of brings us to another case where, uh,
Speaker 1: staffs aren't Gibbs. Right now, he's up for clemency. This
Speaker 1: is an individual war fighter who was found guilty of murder. Again,
Speaker 1: no hard evidence, uh, no bodies, no forensics, uh nothing.
Speaker 1: It was purely based upon testimony by others that found
Speaker 1: him guilty. And and it was others who are actually
Speaker 1: looking out for their own well being, and uh, there
Speaker 1: was enough to convict them, but would end up or
Speaker 1: convict him. Staffs aren't Gibbs. And what's interesting is that
Speaker 1: in staffs aren't Gibbs case. You know, here's an infantry
Speaker 1: staff n CEO, and yet there was not one infantry
Speaker 1: soldier sitting in the jury. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: I believe they were all military policemen. And which is
Speaker 1: bizarre because where this the court martial actually took place
Speaker 1: is I see where the second Infantry Division is garrison.
Speaker 1: So certainly they could have found at least one infantry
Speaker 1: soldier that could have sat there on the jury, and
Speaker 1: yet they didn't. They stacked it with military policemen that
Speaker 1: have a different perspective from our infantry and should it
Speaker 1: would be you know, imagine somebody going and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: being accused of a crime and packing the uh, packing
Speaker 1: the jury with police officers like you don't do that.
Speaker 1: And that's exactly what happened here in Calvin's case. And
Speaker 1: we've we saw in Calvin's case again the three individuals
Speaker 1: that that testified against Calvin, not only were they looking
Speaker 1: out for their own well being, but they were allowed
Speaker 1: to talk amongst themselves actually while smoking Hashi's driving around
Speaker 1: Candahart Air Course base and and corroborate their story to
Speaker 1: make sure that they sold the squad leader, Calvin Gibbs,
Speaker 1: down the down the road. And more over, in Gibbs case,
Speaker 1: we saw that there are two material eyewitnesses who could
Speaker 1: have come in and said, yeah, Calvin Gibbs did not
Speaker 1: commit these crimes, did not commit murder, and yet they
Speaker 1: were not brought in to testify. So these are the
Speaker 1: type of things where you know, staff are gives, people
Speaker 1: have raised other issues about some of the things he
Speaker 1: did wrong. It's a great hold him accountable for that
Speaker 1: which he did wrong. But you can't parlay that into oh, well,
Speaker 1: he did these things wrong, so obviously he's a murderer.
Speaker 1: That's not the way it works, because you have to
Speaker 1: find hard evidence. And yet we see time and again
Speaker 1: that even with evidence like the videotapes in the Marsoc
Speaker 1: three case or in this case with sass Are and
Speaker 1: Gibbs and others where you don't have hard evidence, that
Speaker 1: guys are being found guilty and and again, hold people
Speaker 1: accountable for what they did wrong, but do not trump
Speaker 1: up charges. Don't get over zealous prosecutors who were trying
Speaker 1: to get bigger hills, and and just people understand, I
Speaker 1: get World War two. What we used to have court
Speaker 1: martials that the way that would be done is they say, hey,
Speaker 1: let's grab this infantry officer and this artillery officer and
Speaker 1: you know, have them be the defense and have them
Speaker 1: be the prosecution, and let's find out the truth in
Speaker 1: this individual case. And that's not what's happening anymore. Now
Speaker 1: we have professional attorneys. And these attorneys go from law school,
Speaker 1: they go through sixteen weeks of training to figure out
Speaker 1: how to put their uniform on and learn military jargon
Speaker 1: and then the next thing, you know, their careers are
Speaker 1: based upon their prosecutions, how successful are they in getting
Speaker 1: quote unquote kills under their belt, which are fellow servicemen.
Speaker 1: And so unlike the World War Two infantry officer artillery
Speaker 1: officer that played attorney that then would go back to
Speaker 1: their career and be assessed for promotion based upon, you know,
Speaker 1: whether they were good infantry officers or artillery officers, these
Speaker 1: attorneys are being held accountable as attorneys. So they've got
Speaker 1: a very different mindset and and that's troubling when all
Speaker 1: of a sudden you've got these professional attorneys that that
Speaker 1: have an incentive within you armed forces, under the same
Speaker 1: convening authority to try and find guilt, and it sets
Speaker 1: them up for prosecutorial misconduct for hiding a sculpratory information,
Speaker 1: for trying to get a bigger kill, like for somebody
Speaker 1: to get a murder case or manslaughter case, instead of
Speaker 1: you know, just saying well, okay that we don't see
Speaker 1: it here. This it sents a very troubling precedent, especially
Speaker 1: when we have never had one military prosecutor being held
Speaker 1: accountable for prosecutorial misconduct a crime, never once like administratively.
Speaker 1: Perhaps they may have been moved off a case or
Speaker 1: something else, but they've never been held criminally accountable, and
Speaker 1: they should. You know, we can talk about Eddie Gallagher's case,
Speaker 1: where I know there's a lot of conflict, there's when
Speaker 1: people you know, are concerned about how that whole case
Speaker 1: played out. But at the end of the day, the
Speaker 1: prosecutors spied on the attorney client privilege. They put spywear
Speaker 1: on emails that they were sending to the defense attorney.
Speaker 1: That is a criminal act. And what happens to that prosecute, Well,
Speaker 1: they just moved him off the case. No, that's that's
Speaker 1: a criminal act. Why wasn't he held accountable? And time
Speaker 1: and again we see this happening, and for them, when
Speaker 1: they look at the risk reward, it's like, well, if
Speaker 1: I get a kill here, I get promoted. If I
Speaker 1: get caught, well, no big deal. There's no real downside
Speaker 1: for these guys. And and that's where we need to
Speaker 1: start holding people accountable and making sure that the right
Speaker 1: things are happening at the right time for the right reasons. Again,
Speaker 1: we're not determining innocence or guilt, We're just preserving the
Speaker 1: end individuals rights, And if I could just talk about
Speaker 1: about one more piece, there are organizations out there like
Speaker 1: the Innocence Project or the a c l U that
Speaker 1: if they hear that there's an individual civilian sitting on
Speaker 1: death row for committing some horrific crime, whatever it is, rape,
Speaker 1: murdered you, whatever you want to imagine, the most horrific
Speaker 1: crime you can imagine. And yet they find out that
Speaker 1: guess what, that that individual's rights were violated, whether it's
Speaker 1: unlawful search and seizure or inappropriate you know, the wrong
Speaker 1: DNA was identified or or anything else, that individual, they
Speaker 1: will fight as hard as they can to get that
Speaker 1: individual off of death row. And quite frankly, that's the
Speaker 1: right thing to do, because any individual's wrongdoing does not
Speaker 1: outweigh all of our rights. Our rights must be preserved
Speaker 1: and it we don't see these same organizations fighting for
Speaker 1: our warriors when our warriors are having their rights preserved.
Speaker 1: And as we all know, the only reason that we
Speaker 1: have our rights is because we have individual warriors that
Speaker 1: are willing to support and defend our constitution, which is
Speaker 1: our rights. And those warriors don't get the same benefit
Speaker 1: of the doubt. They don't get the presumption of innocence.
Speaker 1: They don't get the same standards of a civilian court.
Speaker 1: And so this is where you ap dot Org. We're
Speaker 1: going to continue to fight to make sure that our
Speaker 1: warriors are having at least equal justice. Uh. I think
Speaker 1: that's fantastic, and you know, I think all of our
Speaker 1: listeners fully support that. I mean, again, you talked about prosecutor,
Speaker 1: you know, prosecutor prosecute misconduct. I'm getting all tongue tied.
Speaker 1: This happen do yeah, And you know, the first thing
Speaker 1: that came to mind was the Eddie Gallagher case and uh,
Speaker 1: you know what happened there was just again mind boggling.
Speaker 1: And then I, like I said, I was, you know,
Speaker 1: heavily read in on what was going on with Clint Lawrence.
Speaker 1: But there's many more cases that you guys have been
Speaker 1: involved with, obviously, and it's just, um, it's it's shocking
Speaker 1: because we don't usually equate that with the country that
Speaker 1: we live in. We're supposed to be the people that
Speaker 1: played by the rules and take care of everyone, and
Speaker 1: we take care of our civilians for for the most
Speaker 1: part in the civilian courts. But we're not doing a
Speaker 1: good enough job when it comes to the military guys, Well,
Speaker 1: that's definitely true. I mean, you know, here's another situation
Speaker 1: is UH staffs are Bob Bales and this is you
Speaker 1: know case the Canada har massacre and UH snaps are
Speaker 1: Bails confessed the killing sixteen civilians and whether or not
Speaker 1: he actually killed sixteen or as some would say, twenty,
Speaker 1: and whether or not they were all civilians. We don't
Speaker 1: know why because the US government never saw the bodies,
Speaker 1: never conducted forensics, never did autopsies. The Afghan government claimed
Speaker 1: that's what happened, and that was it. It wasn't until
Speaker 1: a month after when all the bodies have been buried,
Speaker 1: and well they were buried the next day that c
Speaker 1: i D actually went out and conducted a limited investigation
Speaker 1: because they told that it's too dangerous of an environment
Speaker 1: for them to be out there. But they conducted a
Speaker 1: very limited investigation, and they came back and they held
Speaker 1: Bob accountable for these crimes. And you know, here's an
Speaker 1: individual where you know, Bob was frustrated. He felt that
Speaker 1: again the defensive posture that was happening at the time
Speaker 1: was not conducive to how they should be prosecuting the
Speaker 1: war and he basically decided to take the warrant his
Speaker 1: own hands and step off base and go out with
Speaker 1: the intent to kill enemy combatants. And unfortunately he did
Speaker 1: kill civilians and he acknowledges that, and uh, that still
Speaker 1: haunts him. But what ends up happening is that when
Speaker 1: he came back that there was this rush to judgment.
Speaker 1: There was they immediately put the death penalty on the
Speaker 1: table and they said, look, sign this confession that you
Speaker 1: killed these sixties of Williams, or we're gonna hold you
Speaker 1: accountable for the death penalty and we're gonna take you
Speaker 1: to trial and we will find you guilty. And they
Speaker 1: pressured him. The prosecution pressured him. They had others were saying, look,
Speaker 1: Bob just signed this confession because there's so many people
Speaker 1: US troops that are now their lives are endangered because
Speaker 1: what you did. And then yet his defense attorney saying,
Speaker 1: Bob just signed this so they don't hold you accountable
Speaker 1: for the death penalty. And his own wife said said, Bob,
Speaker 1: please do whatever it takes so they don't kill you.
Speaker 1: We have two children, and Bob's an amazing family man.
Speaker 1: Even while he's been in prison, he does homework with
Speaker 1: his kids, his kids going to visit with him, or
Speaker 1: at least they did before the COVID lockdown. And and
Speaker 1: he's sitting here doing homework with his kids and talks
Speaker 1: to his kids all the time. His wife moved close
Speaker 1: to the prison so that they can maintain a relationship.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is not some you know, horrible, horrible,
Speaker 1: evil monster as they point him out to be. However,
Speaker 1: here's the thing. Even if Bob committed these horrific crimes
Speaker 1: and decide to walk off based by himself and do this, well,
Speaker 1: anybody who knows the facts of the case, they immediately say, wow,
Speaker 1: that's crazy. You know, him walking off by himself to
Speaker 1: engage the enemy. That's crazy. And yet he was never
Speaker 1: tested to see if in fact he was crazy. And
Speaker 1: in the again, in the civilian courts, if someone walked
Speaker 1: into a high school or a grade school or Sandy
Speaker 1: Hook or what have you and starts gunning down children,
Speaker 1: that after that individual has taken into custody and read
Speaker 1: his rights, the next thing that happens is before they
Speaker 1: go through a try, they actually test for what's called
Speaker 1: his men's raea. Did he have the mental capacity to
Speaker 1: understand that what he was doing was completely wrong that
Speaker 1: he didn't he was crazy in essence, and yet they
Speaker 1: never bought the test Bob for that. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, it gets worse because a lot of operators
Speaker 1: who I know, who are listening to this right now,
Speaker 1: will realize, like myself, we took larium or methyl quinn.
Speaker 1: This is an anti malaria drug. And I know in
Speaker 1: two thousand two when I took this that I started
Speaker 1: having weird hallucinations right after I took this fricking thing,
Speaker 1: and I stopped taking it. And we had three special
Speaker 1: operators that returned from Afghanistan at the time and they
Speaker 1: killed their wives. And it's been showing that this drug
Speaker 1: has been linked to really horrific nightmares and paranoia and
Speaker 1: all sorts of psychological problems, and yet the prosecution again
Speaker 1: did not even bring this into the case. Nobody even
Speaker 1: discussed the fact that Bob had taken larry um or
Speaker 1: methyl quinn, which could have altered his psyche In essence,
Speaker 1: he could have been crazy, and instead they pressured him
Speaker 1: to make a confession, and so he made this confession
Speaker 1: and the next thing they did, this is where it
Speaker 1: gets worse. They then went to the sentencing portion Now
Speaker 1: because he made a confession, they took the death sentence
Speaker 1: off the table, and they said, all right, well, we're
Speaker 1: gonna bring in what's called impact witnesses. So they decided
Speaker 1: to fly in what they said, we're Afghan farmers into
Speaker 1: the country and then put them on Delta airlines with
Speaker 1: other US citizens, flew them over to testify against Bob.
Speaker 1: And they all told these horrific stories and how it
Speaker 1: was horrible that family members were killed and all the rest,
Speaker 1: and and then the prosecution took them to see world
Speaker 1: and took him out the dinner and took care of them,
Speaker 1: and then flew them back to Afghanistan. And we know
Speaker 1: this for a fact because we have all the receipts
Speaker 1: and all the rest. But what was interesting is they
Speaker 1: brought them in under false names, with false passports. Now
Speaker 1: would they have done that, Well, when again you a
Speaker 1: p supported the attorneys and the investigators going doing the homework,
Speaker 1: they found out, wait a second, these guys might be
Speaker 1: farmers during the day, but at night, these guys are
Speaker 1: died in the wold Taliban. So while we're at war
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan, our country, our government flew in enemy combatants,
Speaker 1: not just some random civilian enemy combatants to come in
Speaker 1: and testify against a U. S. Serviceman. But that's the
Speaker 1: type of thing where that can't be tolerated. And so
Speaker 1: as horrific as Bob's crimes, maybe you can't allow this
Speaker 1: precedent to stand where our US government thinks it's okay
Speaker 1: to collaborate with the enemy to try and put someone
Speaker 1: away for life. And that's exactly what happened. Bob's been
Speaker 1: put away from life. So these are the type of
Speaker 1: things where, again, you know, people want to argue all
Speaker 1: the time, well, what Bob it was horrible? Okay, great,
Speaker 1: Bob will even tell you what he did was horrible,
Speaker 1: and he'll tell you that, you know what, I hold
Speaker 1: me accountable for what I did wrong. But at the
Speaker 1: same time, you can't take away an individual's rights. That's
Speaker 1: where the system has to be addressed, and we have
Speaker 1: to make sure we're fighting because quite frankly, maybe Bob's
Speaker 1: case is not peculiar to everyone else here, but any
Speaker 1: of our other warriors that are out there, when they
Speaker 1: pull the trigger, they've got to realize that, depending upon
Speaker 1: how that gets assessed, the next thing, you know, they
Speaker 1: could end up in a court martial and and we
Speaker 1: know we've seen this time and again that the enemy
Speaker 1: makes false claims against us all the time, the enemy
Speaker 1: puts civilians in harm's way, so that we get the
Speaker 1: media turning against the warriors all the time. They they
Speaker 1: understand and they're ruthless, and how they do it, how
Speaker 1: they play the propaganda gate and we, because we're a
Speaker 1: passionate country, we tend to fall for this, or at
Speaker 1: least we question our own troops first. And the first
Speaker 1: thing we should be doing is hold on a second,
Speaker 1: let's question the source. Let's find out what's going on here,
Speaker 1: and then let's make sure what we're giving our warriors
Speaker 1: the rights that they deserve, the rights that they fight for.
Speaker 1: And and again, if we find that these warriors are guilty,
Speaker 1: hold them accountable. That's what we do, but not with
Speaker 1: at not at the expense of destroying their rights. And
Speaker 1: I think that sums it up perfectly for what U
Speaker 1: a P. Does, what what you guys are, and who
Speaker 1: you're supporting. And we want to thank you for for
Speaker 1: doing what you do. And I know you said you
Speaker 1: planned on six months to a year. It doesn't sound
Speaker 1: like you're leaving anytime soon, does it No, I'm coming
Speaker 1: up on three you and we're gonna stick it through.
Speaker 1: We're gonna keep fighting and what one of the other
Speaker 1: areas since fortunately, you know, we're drawing down a lot
Speaker 1: of conflicts and so we don't receive a lot more
Speaker 1: war crimes coming in, which was really our niche we've
Speaker 1: actually we started focusing on UH unrecognized valor and one
Speaker 1: of the big cases we're looking at is actually a
Speaker 1: hero in the special operations community UH, Major Jim Caper's
Speaker 1: and Major Jim Caper's was one of the early fish
Speaker 1: reconnaissance marines in Vietnam who really set the standard for
Speaker 1: a lot of the tactics, techniques, and procedures that our
Speaker 1: fullsh reconnaissance marines and our raiders are using to this day.
Speaker 1: Absolute hero, unbelievable, like every every one of his his patrols,
Speaker 1: we're just like incredibly heroic in his leadership. He did
Speaker 1: SCOOPA missions in Vietnam, he did long range reconstance patrols,
Speaker 1: he did recovery patrols. He did a lot of black
Speaker 1: ops that still have not been uncovered, and yet the
Speaker 1: ones that have been uncovered really our representative of a
Speaker 1: warrior who's deserving of the Medal of Honor and yet
Speaker 1: at the same time, this warrior did not get the
Speaker 1: Medal of Honor and we're coming in to figure out
Speaker 1: what exactly happened. There's uh some administrative questions. There's been
Speaker 1: some some closed meetings that we're discussing this where we're
Speaker 1: gonna go forward. We're gonna do foyas to find out
Speaker 1: exactly what was discussed and why this warrior didn't get
Speaker 1: the Medal of Honor. There have been claims of racism.
Speaker 1: This is one of the first African American forcer Constance
Speaker 1: Marines who actually got a battlefield commission and kept his
Speaker 1: battlefield commission while he was in Vietnam and kept it
Speaker 1: when he came home. Uh. He actually Major Jim Capers
Speaker 1: was a poster child literally for the Marine Corps. One
Speaker 1: of the most successful at Marine Corps advertising campaigns was
Speaker 1: asked him Rene and it had his photograph in dress
Speaker 1: Blues was which was a highly successful campaign for the
Speaker 1: Marine Corps. So this is an absolute heroic warrior across
Speaker 1: the board who we're trying to figure out what went
Speaker 1: wrong and why this warrior didn't get the Medal of
Speaker 1: Honor and you know, we don't want to sit here
Speaker 1: and say, well, you know, it was race based. You know,
Speaker 1: we don't know that to be true. We know there's
Speaker 1: a lot of indicators that individuals didn't like him, and
Speaker 1: it seems like it was based upon race. But the
Speaker 1: facts remain that Major Jim Caper's he paid for this
Speaker 1: award with blood, sweat and tears, regardless of anything else.
Speaker 1: And the fact that the Marine Corps never had one
Speaker 1: African American Marine Corps officer who has ever received the
Speaker 1: Medal of Honor, that's a little bit surprising. But again,
Speaker 1: we would like to give the benefit of doubts to
Speaker 1: the Marine Corps that it's merit based. And so we're
Speaker 1: gonna look at this and we're gonna make sure that
Speaker 1: you know, all the teas across the eyes are dotted,
Speaker 1: and you know, here's a warrior who was just recognized
Speaker 1: by the Special Operations Command. He was put into the
Speaker 1: Hall of Honor down there in Tampa, and he was
Speaker 1: one of two Marines that were inducted. And so he's
Speaker 1: gone through a lot of scrutiny and a lot of
Speaker 1: background checks. So it's not just some random individual, but
Speaker 1: this is someone who has been recognized and has been
Speaker 1: his background has been looked at thoroughly, and uh, we're
Speaker 1: honored to actually be working with Major Jim Caper's and
Speaker 1: others to figure out exactly why he hasn't received this
Speaker 1: medal of honor. And we're gonna press to make sure
Speaker 1: that again the truth comes out like gets shined on it.
Speaker 1: And if the man's deserving the medal of Honor, then
Speaker 1: by God, we're gonna make sure that he gets that
Speaker 1: awarded to him. I've spoken to Jim Caper's on the
Speaker 1: phone for quite a couple uh, probably a couple of
Speaker 1: hours one afternoon. He's a tremendous individual and he's getting
Speaker 1: up there in the age a little bit now. But
Speaker 1: but you know, when you read his stories and you
Speaker 1: read the combat missions he was on, it reads like
Speaker 1: a pulp fiction book because you you think to yourself,
Speaker 1: how could anyone survive all this stuff? And he did.
Speaker 1: He's an amazing man. And uh, we we salute your
Speaker 1: efforts on that as well, because I think you know,
Speaker 1: when you talk about people that are deserving, uh, he
Speaker 1: should be at the top of the list. Absolutely. He
Speaker 1: he's a role model. Uh, he's a mentor he's still
Speaker 1: involved with Marsk and the Raiders. He still provides advice
Speaker 1: and guidance. And like you said, he's good enough there
Speaker 1: in years and he's, you know, in his mid eighties,
Speaker 1: and you know, he jokes me, He's like, I only
Speaker 1: got a few more years left. I'm like, you know, Jim,
Speaker 1: the only way you're leaving this plant is when you're
Speaker 1: ready to go, because ain't nobody gonna be able to
Speaker 1: take your life. So he cracks out. He still got
Speaker 1: a sense of humor um. And what's great about him
Speaker 1: he doesn't play the race card. He doesn't say, well,
Speaker 1: you know there was race that. He doesn't do that.
Speaker 1: He's he just wants to make sure that if he's deserving,
Speaker 1: that he gets awarded. But not even so much for him.
Speaker 1: It's more for recognition, recognition of those who served with him.
Speaker 1: And there are others that also did not receive awards
Speaker 1: that were deserving, and we're trying to make sure that
Speaker 1: all of those warriors that served with him in Vietnam
Speaker 1: that they are awarded the appropriate awards. And this is
Speaker 1: not something that just gets brushed under the carpet, because again,
Speaker 1: this is our legacy, this is what our warriors. We
Speaker 1: need heroes who are actually warriors and not have medals
Speaker 1: of honor given out just for people who you know,
Speaker 1: we're in defensive actions that you know we're doing some
Speaker 1: sort of humanitarian action, or you know, they received the
Speaker 1: war posthumously. Like our warriors locate close with and destroy
Speaker 1: the enemy with extreme prejudice. And we need the young
Speaker 1: warriors that are coming up behind them to realize like
Speaker 1: that is appropriate and that is what gets recognized for
Speaker 1: Balor and Jim Capers, by God, he took the fight
Speaker 1: to the enemy. He you know, he told me. He
Speaker 1: tells me stories, you know, one of which where he
Speaker 1: saw some a local village that had actually been terrorized
Speaker 1: by the Vietcong and the village elder. They cut him
Speaker 1: open and hung him up, and so his innerns were
Speaker 1: hanging out for the pigs to eat while he was alive.
Speaker 1: I mean, just a horrific, horrific way for somebody to die.
Speaker 1: And they did intentionally to terrorize anybody else who would
Speaker 1: interact with the U. S. Military. And Caper has had
Speaker 1: a relationship with this village and the village elder, and
Speaker 1: I'll tell you the story of how Jill Jim excuse me,
Speaker 1: how Jim went after these guys with a vengeance and
Speaker 1: he tracked them down, and like his tracking skills were phenomenal,
Speaker 1: and he was talking about the details, and he went
Speaker 1: after them and he took them out with extreme pre judice.
Speaker 1: And those are the type of actions that that's not
Speaker 1: even the ones that he that he's being looked at
Speaker 1: for the metal of honor, But those are the type
Speaker 1: of things where his warriors, they fought the right fight.
Speaker 1: And we hear too many stories that get blown out
Speaker 1: of proportion by the by the media about you know,
Speaker 1: the baby killers over in Vietnam, and everybody was smoking
Speaker 1: pot and committing crimes, and you know, that makes for
Speaker 1: a good movie, But that wasn't the majority of our warriors.
Speaker 1: And that's why when you find a true warrior like this,
Speaker 1: who's representative of all that is good and right about
Speaker 1: the warrior ethos about how they conducted operations in Vietnam,
Speaker 1: that story must be told, and it has to be
Speaker 1: told loudly and broadly so that America realizes that those
Speaker 1: warriors that served in Vietnam for the most part, were
Speaker 1: honorable warriors and they cannot be blackened by this disgrace
Speaker 1: of of marring them with the few incidents that really
Speaker 1: were horrible, but we're not indicative of how most of
Speaker 1: the warriors acted over Vietnam. So we're fighting for Jim
Speaker 1: Capers to make sure that he receives the recognition he
Speaker 1: deserves and that the story gets told across the nation
Speaker 1: and he gets heralded as the hero that others need
Speaker 1: to emulate. Well, I think that's again, you know, after
Speaker 1: speaking with Major Capers and and talking to him on
Speaker 1: the phone, he's such a uh, he's such a low
Speaker 1: key you know, he's not He's very humble and he's
Speaker 1: just a great man. And we wish you all the
Speaker 1: luck with that because I think again he's very very deserving.
Speaker 1: And sir, thank you for all you do for all
Speaker 1: our veterans that are out there that need your help.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you've explained to our listeners how
Speaker 1: they can go about volunteering or donating, and if they
Speaker 1: know anyone, they can contact your organization and and put
Speaker 1: them in touch with the people that can help. And
Speaker 1: I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the fact that,
Speaker 1: on a personal note, I noticed that you prevented Jack
Speaker 1: Nicholson from beating Up Tom Cruise and a few good men.
Speaker 1: So we couldn't let you go without mentioning that it's
Speaker 1: probably some of our listeners that probably wish you had
Speaker 1: so we won't get into that too much. But um, yeah,
Speaker 1: you were in that film and uh that I guess
Speaker 1: we'll we'll leave that as it is today, but that's
Speaker 1: that's probably fought for another podcast maybe in the future. Yeah, Steve.
Speaker 1: All I could say about that is you can't handle
Speaker 1: the truth. There you go. It's like because you need
Speaker 1: me on that wall exactly, And that's the only thing
Speaker 1: anybody really cares about my military career. Nothing else matters,
Speaker 1: like oh the movie all right, yeah yeah, and again
Speaker 1: we'll talk about that on another podcasts some other time.
Speaker 1: But we really want to thank you for being here
Speaker 1: today and telling us all about you know, U A P.
Speaker 1: And what you guys are and who you are and
Speaker 1: who you're helping and all of us here at soft
Speaker 1: up appreciate that. But before we go, I need to
Speaker 1: read one little quick blurb to our listeners out there.
Speaker 1: If you want to get soft rep on your phone,
Speaker 1: download our free mobile app and get easy access to articles, podcasts,
Speaker 1: and great reviews, all perfectly formatted to your device. Please
Speaker 1: subscribe to softwarep dot com to get access to all
Speaker 1: our library of e books and our exclusive team room.
Speaker 1: Forms and content available on on all Apple and Android devices.
Speaker 1: Listening to self rep living you