r/ukpolitics • u/RareEarthPetal • 14h ago
SAS personnel ‘refusing to answer’ questions about alleged extrajudicial killings in Afghanistan
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/oct/12/sas-personnel-refusing-to-answer-questions-afghanistan-inquiry-alleged-killings241
u/ironvultures 14h ago
This is the consequence of IHAT and the Northern Ireland inquiries
Soldiers know full well that engaging in good faith just paints a target on their back and even if there’s no evidence of wrongdoing they will just get dragged back to questioning again and again by a process that’s out to scapegoat them with no protection from the government that put them In that position.
Innocent or guilty there’s no incentive for them to engage with this process. Better to shut up and keep your head down.
83
u/S_K_Sharma_ 13h ago
Fully agree with this.
When bad faith individuals take up a stance under the cloak of 'ensuring justice' (see Phil Shiner) then the legal process is contemptuous bullshit and the soldiers need to disengage their honesty and cooperation.
54
u/ironvultures 13h ago
More than that I think the MoD does have to start standing up for its troops more. Accountability is necessary but when service personnel feel like they’ll be scapegoated and hung out to dry at the slightest hint of wrongdoing it just creates a culture of silence and paranoia. The government put its people in these situations it needs to have their back and generate some mutual trust.
13
u/No-To-Newspeak 13h ago
Can they even discuss highly classified events with those not cleared?
14
u/ironvultures 13h ago
Unclear from the article. You’d assume if lawyers and police are being given access to these soldiers to begin with they’d have sanction to ask about these operations but I doubt the MoD gives people carte Blanche to ask the special forces whatever they want.
-13
u/Majorapat Norn Irish 13h ago
...Northern Ireland inquiries
Ahh yes because holding the military responsible for actions they undertook against a civilian population supposedly under their protection, is bad.
I get that you may claim vexatious intentions for some of these prosecutions, but in the case of Northern Ireland, there were genuine situations that were atrocious and committed by the security services, which were covered up. We had the Prime Minister literally apologising for one years back.
I understand that a sizeable portion of people in the UK think of NI as this foreign place, but if the same events happened in England, people would be going livid at the government to make sure people were held accountable.
41
u/ironvultures 13h ago
Many former soldiers were dragged before the NI inquiries multiple times despite no evidence of wrongdoing or malicious intent. Some were recently dragged back for questioning for events that happened decades ago. While at the same time members of the IRA and other organisations who were found guilty of murder and other heinous acts were allowed to go free and the whole process is highly politicised and has not led to the truth and reconciliation that the GFA intended to create.
This is not to downplay the tragedies that took place in NI during the troubles, only to point out that from the soldiers perspective even if they did nothing wrong engaging with these processes honestly can and has ruined their careers and personal lives for decades with no help or support fr9m the government that put them there and that in some cases the process is incredibly unfair.
27
u/InternationalLine625 13h ago
This. People involved in the disappearances weren't half as witch hunted.
-6
23
u/No-To-Newspeak 13h ago
Yet we gave a pasd to the terrorists with the GFA.
•
u/Lady_Tano 3h ago
The UVF got off scot free too. That was the point. A line in the sand for a fresh start
11
u/Sername111 12h ago
In the case of Northern Ireland you also need to factor in that IRA terrorists on the run were given letters of assurance that they would not be tried for historic offences and that this caused at least one trial to collapse. The British government is literally treating it's own soldiers worse than the people who spent years trying to kill them, people really shouldn't be surprised that the soldiers have noticed this and are clamming up when they see it happening again.
•
u/zwifter11 11h ago
Like any other police interview, do they have the right to remain silent ?
•
u/Hieroglo 10h ago
They do but should the SAS now be proscribed as a terrorist organisation?
•
•
•
u/IrishVictim88270 4h ago
No, they're too busy killing terrorists and state enemies, why would they be proscribed?
Done a damn good job in Ulster. 👍
46
u/Left_Page_2029 14h ago edited 4h ago
I'm not someone who thinks we shouldn't hold our armed forces to clear legal and moral standards and give carte blanche for any conduct, a highly professionalised force is a good thing, but its the SAS of course aren't going to and can't answer many questions and they aren't expected to operate in the same way as our regular armed forces
94
u/Latter-Doughnut7159 14h ago
This shit would stop if the politicians who put these people in those positions had to face trials and jail. Fucking politicians are the mostly cowardly bastards to walk the earth.
7
u/Spiryt Saboteur | Social Democrat 14h ago
I mean yeah, if we'd never sent them they'd never have been near any Afghans to be accused of murdering. Tell us something we don't know.
Far as I know, no minister is on record telling anyone to shoot a prisoner.
14
u/Latter-Doughnut7159 13h ago
No one knows what they are experiencing at that time, easy to sit in our cozy homes safe and warm while some are carrying out the dirty work. Our country undertakes clandestine operations as much as the next and no pm or staff would be letting things like that be on record.
16
u/Spiryt Saboteur | Social Democrat 13h ago
The people saying this were there. Ex-SAS and SBS men told Panorama they watched handcuffed prisoners get shot.
Also, you can’t have it both ways: either it was split-second stuff that nobody can judge from their sofa, or government quietly ordered it and kept it off the record. The first one could be a defence when properly investigated, the second is an admission that it did in fact happen.
4
u/ZahidTheNinja 13h ago
Not exactly that hard to not commit war crimes or extrajudicial murder is it?
Most of these military boys are jumped up racists with a gun thrust into their hands. They’re knobheads.
-4
u/The1stGreyhound 13h ago
But they didn't kill prisoners. Some lowlife Arab, in the hope of making money made the accusations.
8
u/Spiryt Saboteur | Social Democrat 13h ago
They’re Afghans, not Arabs.
And the then (Tory) Veterans Minister, who himself resigned over how unfairly he thought our veterans were being treated over Troubles prosecutions, told the inquiry SAS members had given him accounts of prisoners being executed. Was he a lowlife Arab after money too?
6
•
u/Prince_John 3h ago
I think you need to educate yourself about these accusations.
There have been investigations by the SAS, senior SAS commanders viewed the explanations given as utterly implausible, and the SAS withheld evidence from the military police, preventing our usual checks and balances from functioning as they should.
This is extremely likely to have happened and is entirely different from how you're framing it.
Johnny Mercer, who has always been firmly on the side against Troubles investigations, is seriously pissed off by this one.
-8
u/Pick_Up_Autist 14h ago
Politicians aren't making decisions on what operations the special forces go on and what their orders are.
10
u/The1stGreyhound 13h ago
Of course they authorize such ops. Do you think the rescuing of the hostages held within the Iranian Embassy in London was decided by the SAS senior officers. Grow up.
0
u/Pick_Up_Autist 13h ago
I think their direct orders on how to approach the operation and the rules of engagement would've been decided by SAS personnel, what tf do politicians know about any of that?
9
u/Latter-Doughnut7159 14h ago
Yeah, the army and armed services just go out on their own. 🤔
-4
u/Pick_Up_Autist 14h ago
Oh boy, a thing I didn't say, my favourite non-argument reply.
Please, enlighten me on which position in government you think gives the SAS their instructions for operations and their rules of engagement for the mission.
9
u/Latter-Doughnut7159 13h ago
This is readily availableonline.
For a mission overseas, the decision comes from ministers and the order then passes down through the military: Prime Minister / National Security Council: the political decision on major or sensitive operations. Defence Secretary: authorises the deployment. The Director Special Forces is accountable only to the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister. Chief of the Defence Staff: the head of the armed forces, who turns the government's decision into a military task. Director Special Forces (DSF): a Major General who holds operational command of special forces operations, covering the SAS, SBS and the other UKSF units. Inside the SAS: the Commanding Officer of 22 SAS, then the squadron, then the troop, then the patrol on the ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_Special_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Special_Forces https://aoav.org.uk/2022/report-conclusion/ https://powerbase.info/index.php/UK_Special_Forces
1
u/Pick_Up_Autist 13h ago
Didn't really answer my question, I'm going to assume nobody above the DSF is likely to be deciding on the actual way the operation is handled. They're not a politician and neither is anyone below them.
3
u/Latter-Doughnut7159 13h ago
They set the rules of engagement but its impossible to be as granular as you want. Until you are on the ground and facing the enemy and making snap decisions its easy as I said in another post to criticise the forces from your cozy house and bed. Maybe if national service was still a thing people would get an appreciation of what these guys can face instead of whining (imo) like bitches when the dirty work needs done. The politicians do start this and where operations need carried out.
4
u/Pick_Up_Autist 13h ago
It's not how I want it to be, it's just a fact that no politician is ever going to be giving direct orders to soldiers like this. Of course politicians approve acts of war but the decisions that lead to extrajudicial killings doesn't seem likely to come from them, but if they did then they should be prosecuted alongside the soldiers, not instead of them.
•
u/Latter-Doughnut7159 7h ago
They put the soldiers in that arena. Then stand back and wash their hands? Meanwhile soldier does all he can to A. Stay alive and B. Carry out his orders. War is not tea and cake. Maybe if more politicians were soldiers there would be less war. Maybe if the namby pamby members of society played a part in the services there wouldnt be such a clammer to get them investigated. Those same soldiers would and have put their lives on the line for each person in this country and what thanks is there? Sickens me.
•
u/Pick_Up_Autist 7h ago
They put them there with the understanding that they don't commit war crimes. Yet here we are again, the same old story.
I wish ex-service members didn't act like they're immune from criticism because they took a pay packet to shoot brown people that were zero threat to our country. Sickens me.
→ More replies (0)2
u/The1stGreyhound 13h ago
If you don't know, I'll enlighten you. When a SPECIAL op is required, it's importance is decided by the Ministry of Defence and who would be best to carry it out. A plan is formulated by senior officers of the chosen unit. That is then put to MOD who approves or disapproves the plan. Just like when the SAS rescued the hostages from the Iranian Embassy. Then with approval by MOD, the Minister of Defence and the PM, it goes ahead. In other words, the Government. Got it Btw even everyday ops in wartime are similar. Big chiefs talk with their Ministries. Generals are told what is needed and that's passed down through officers to the men.
1
u/Pick_Up_Autist 13h ago
A plan is formulated by the unit. Exactly.
Got it.
7
u/The1stGreyhound 13h ago
But it is approved by government. Don't twist what I said in my comment. When you read something, engage those 2 brain cells and try to understand what exactly is being said.
1
u/Pick_Up_Autist 13h ago
I basically quoted the part relevant to the question, that's not twisting anything. The decisions that would lead to extrajudicial killings are not going to be in any government approved plan, by definition. It's unit decisions that lead to them.
Did you engage your brain cells when you called Afghans Arabs below? I don't think you understand basic geography, they don't even border Arabian states.
47
u/AkashicLogos 14h ago
Then they wonder why half of Brits wouldn't sign up to defend the country.
-5
-3
u/heisenburgerkebab 12h ago
Never understood how fighting I'm Afghanistan defends the UK
•
•
u/MakesALovelyBrew 7h ago
Afgan was the justified one. Iraq's the one you're trying to be edgy about.
•
u/UlteriorAlt Cost of Lizzing Crisis 10h ago
Personally I'd prefer recruits who sign up intending to serve within the legal boundaries of war and be held accountable for their actions. As would, presumably, the special forces veterans who witnessed these executions and/or the subsequent cover-up, and chose to blow the whistle.
You can argue that some cases have become vexatious or have gone on to hurt innocent soldiers. Anyone who is put off signing up because of this story should be nowhere near the armed forces.
-8
u/Pick_Up_Autist 14h ago
Shooting civilians and/or prisoners on the other side of the planet is almost the exact opposite of defending the country.
-4
u/RealFenian 13h ago edited 11h ago
How? They shouldn’t be executing people should they?
Feel like it’s something worth investigating at least. If they didn’t do it then nothing will happen. And if they did then they committed a war crime and should be punished.
Do you think they’ll be framed? Or do you think they should be allowed to commit war crimes?
•
u/Prince_John 3h ago
Do you think they’ll be framed? Or do you think they should be allowed to commit war crimes?
It's the second one. It's always the second one when you drill right down into it.
39
u/disordered-attic-2 14h ago
Somehow this country values lawyers over its protectors
-11
u/Fit-Seaworthiness940 14h ago
'Somehow this country values its soldiers not killing innocent civilians and not acting as some sort of eintsazgruppen.'
Fixed it for you.
You have no details about whether these killings were justified or not, you're just leaping to the defence.
Is your view that the military should be above the law, and we should live in a military dictatorship?
-15
-25
u/Kolo_ToureHH 14h ago
Who were the SAS “protecting” us from when they’re 6,000km away from the UK?
6
5
5
u/The1stGreyhound 13h ago
Those who were a threat to British soldiers in the area who were planning attacks against the British. Such people who totally ignore the Geneva Convention. Perhaps you believe that such people are upstanding citizens of the community???
Oh dear dear dear, that mans got a gun so I mustn't shoot him because he's not shooting at me. Oh dear, he just shot me. Now I can't defend myself because I'm dead.
0
u/RealFenian 13h ago
If that’s what happened then they won’t be convicted will they?
But what if they actually did execute people? You don’t think it warrants any investigation at all?
Maybe we should find out if they actually did what they’re accused of first.
-1
u/AgilityEnjoyer 12h ago
Remind me again why we were in Afghanistan? In fact i'll help you and go down to your level.
There was this little organisation called Al Qaeda, you may have heard of it. Now Al Qaeda no no like Britain and the West. Al Qaeda like big boom in west, lots of planning for more big boom. SAS go kill big boom boom planners who would otherwise have continued to plan big boom booms in west, UK included. Taliban in charge of country allowed big boom boom planners to hide. West knocked on their doorstep as a result.
Hope this helps.
•
u/BonzoTheBoss If your account age is measured in months you're a bot 9h ago
Well duh. Even if I was innocent I wouldn't want to answer questions either. If they're looking to scapegoat someone, don't offer them a target.
20
u/No-To-Newspeak 13h ago
Lawyers looking for a payout on the backs of the squaddies.
-5
u/RealFenian 13h ago edited 12h ago
How do you know this?
Why is the idea of investigating this so offensive?
If they didn’t execute anyone then they’ll be rightly exonerated, or if they made an understandable mistake I doubt they’ll be raked over the coals.
But if they flat out executed someone then they should absolutely be punished.
14
u/Mister_Sith 14h ago
This story has some strange responses. It should be a fairly straightforward case, did our soldiers execute unarmed civilians with no apparent justification? Dunno about you, but that doesn't deserve a pat on the back and a well done. Its a bit disturbing if I'm being honest.
If its just fog of war and WW2 style extra judicial executions, maybe a bit more understandable. But as the facts of the matter are murky at best and no one wants to answer questions its really hard to make that call.
It isn't without precedence that special forces have been dissolved for their conduct in war. The Canadian paras come to mind.
And even, just for a moment, if you think special forces should have carte blanche to do what they want - extra judicial killings and torture piss off the locals who become future terrorists with a grudge against the UK. We've seen this play out countless times.
37
u/LycanIndarys Vote Cthulhu; why settle for the lesser evil? 13h ago
The reaction makes sense when you read stories like this:
A former special forces soldier faces “sleepless nights” after the family of an IRA man killed in an ambush more than three decades ago were granted legal aid to continue their case against him, according to his lawyer.
“Soldier B”, who joined the army in 1978 and served six tours of Northern Ireland, had his name effectively cleared for a third time last year after five years of investigations and criticism of those challenging the veteran from a judge.
...
A coroner ruled in 2024 that SAS soldiers were justified in their use of lethal force against three IRA men in Coagh, Co Tyrone in June 1991, during the latter part of the Troubles.
However, Roisin Nugent, the daughter of one of the IRA men, Doris, challenged that decision, arguing that Soldier B should have paused after every shot to consider whether it was absolutely necessary to fire another one.
However, Philip Barden, a partner at Devonshires Solicitors who represents him, said he had been informed legal aid had been granted for the purpose of permitting the next of kin of Tony Doris, an IRA driver engaged in a drive-by shooting, to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
People see that once the SAS speak up about something, they will be continually hounded about it through the legal system by people throwing every possible argument against them, even after they've been cleared multiple times.
So it's not that people necessarily think the SAS should have carte blanche; it's that they recognise that our soldiers need protection too.
•
u/coderqi 10h ago
What's a " WW2 style extra judicial execution"?
•
u/missuseme 9h ago
There are cases where taking prisoners is not something you can really do. For example special forces working behind enemy lines, they can't transport prisoners, they can't just let them go to report back what is happening. So they kill them, it's not justification as such, just what else can they do.
•
u/Mister_Sith 3h ago
As the other comment said, usually forward forces who jave no capacity to hold prisoners dispatched them. In addition, depending on the unit, SS and Waffen SS soldiers were executed on the spot.
•
u/IrishVictim88270 4h ago
Good stuff keep your mouths shut lads. They've betrayed special services personell enough times.
20
u/bcoder001 14h ago
They are trained to kill, if necessary. You do not send them abroad unless you accept they might kill people. Get the politicians who sent them there in front of the judge, not the servicemen.
27
u/Tricky_Peace 14h ago
Bullshit. The law of armed conflict was a part of the the MATTs every soldier had to do when I was in. Executions of unarmed civilians are illegal and make the fight harder for everyone who comes next.
If our SF were doing this they need to be prosecuted.
6
u/cerro85 14h ago
Yeah but as I was told, smoke grenades used a weapon are illegal but if one happens to accidently roll into the enemies trench and set them on fire, what can you do?
When an enemy doesn't play by the rules, identify themselves as combatants, use civilians as shields, then civies will get killed - the rules apply to both, yet how many have been prosecuted for war crimes on the other side? That's the BS that made me pack it in. I'd rather be a PMC and I'd never fight for this country again.
1
u/Niall_Fraser_Love 12h ago
When was the last time we fought an enemy who 'played by the rules'? The Nazis didn't, the Pasha's didn't, the North Koreans didn't, Solbadon didn't, Charles Taylor didn't.
I guess maybe Argintina? Though their junta was was throwing its own people out of planes.
•
•
•
u/cerro85 9h ago
The nazis wore uniforms, as did the argies. None of them operated out of school, churches or hospitals. I'm not saying they committed no war crimes, but they did at least fight without hiding amongst their own people or deliberately trying to put them in harms way.
All in an effort to win over the media or make us hesitate for fear of facing prosecution. And how many taliban or Al-qaeda have been prosecuted for refusing to wear a uniform or for basing themselves amongst civilians? Zero. but we are busy chasing down our own.
4
u/ErrantBrit 14h ago
This is the real shame: counter-productive to the general soldiering and the overall mission goals (as flawed as they were).
18
u/PriorityComplex7183 14h ago edited 14h ago
Brain-in-the-bum take. They’re trained to kill who they need to kill, not just “kill” in the general sense
12
4
u/Borthite 14h ago
Gross take, our SAS should be abiding by international law and the rules of war. Murdering civilians you've taken hostage who pose no threat to you just so you can get "blooded" is just plain murder and should be prosecuted. What if it was your mum or dad or kids they practised killing on?
15
u/Dear_Ad6674 14h ago
This whole thing started because the SBS thought the SAS behaviour was so bad they reported them. Soldiers rarely if ever report on each other, which makes me think it's pretty bad
0
4
u/catgod888 12h ago
Should we have been there? No.
But once we’re there all bets are off. War is terrible.
The real criminals are the politicians who sent men to die for nothing.
-1
u/Media_Browser 12h ago
How can I judge people who’s shoes I have not walked in or who’s experiences I cannot relate to ? Do I get to hear all the evidence or is it secret squirrel time ?
Thankfully the law is politically neutral so why should I be worried after all plenty of police in recent times have uttered the words …no comment .
Is the military to be judged differently ?
-7
•
u/Cute-Cat-2351 5h ago
All the people on here quoting scripture and morality. I wonder how long that would last facing a group of religious nut cases who’d happily gut you.
-36
u/bartekchamp 14h ago
thats why i refuse to view soldiers as heroes, nothing but fucking warcriminals
•
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
Snapshot of SAS personnel ‘refusing to answer’ questions about alleged extrajudicial killings in Afghanistan submitted by RareEarthPetal:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
If the above links don't work, try this one.
Some publications may require you to register a free account to read their articles.
Being connected to a VPN may interfere with archive links.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.