There was a “deliberate policy” to “kill fighting-aged males… even when they did not pose a threat” amongst some members of a British particular forces unit in Afghanistan, an inquiry has heard.
In a notice dated 7 April 2011, a senior officer warned the director of UK particular forces in regards to the coverage, sharing issues from the unit’s commanding officer.
However the senior officer, codenamed N1466, stated a “conscious decision” was made to cowl up potential battle crimes by the unit, dubbed UKSF1.
Picture:
British troopers in Afghanistan in 2010. File pic: Reuters
The doc was launched by the Afghanistan Inquiry after proof was given in closed hearings by UK particular forces members.
Within the notice, N1466 – who was assistant chief of workers for operations in UKSF headquarters – described what he’d heard from the unit’s commanding officer.
“He felt that this was… possibly a deliberate policy among the current (sub-unit) to engage and kill fighting-aged males on target even when they did not pose a threat,” the notice learn.
“He had been approached by some of his men who recounted separate conversations with (trained) members of UKSF1 in which such suggestions had been made.”
The notice defined that the unit’s commanding officer “is sure that they are accurately reporting what they are hearing from colleagues”.
And whereas N1466 conceded that the allegation could possibly be merely a “rumour” or a “wind up”, he stated “the context would not support either assertion”.
Picture:
A British soldier in Lashkar Gah, Afghanistan, in 2010. File pic: Reuters
‘Hearsay might show explosive’
He continued: “The very fact that this rumour is circulating is in itself distasteful and in my view unacceptable to UKSF ethos and UKSF dynamics – it could prove explosive.
“Clearly, if there’s something greater than hearsay behind it then parts of UKSF have strayed into indefensible moral and authorized behaviour.”
He concluded: “My intuition is that this deserves deeper investigation.”
However, the director, known to the inquiry as N1802, made a “aware resolution” to cover up potential war crimes, N1466 claimed.
The senior officer further accused the director of controlling information about alleged murders “in a manner that I feel indicated a need to maintain it low profile”.
N1466 said he became concerned that data from deliberate detention operations (DDOs), including the number of weapons found compared with the number of enemies killed, “did not appear credible”.
Picture:
Troopers in Afghanistan. Pic: iStock
The director shared his view, he believed, however selected to deal with the knowledge in a “way which limited the spread of the damage outside the headquarters”.
N1802 did not “ever talk about possible criminal activity”, the officer alleged, as an alternative initiating a assessment of the techniques, strategies and procedures (TTPs) utilized by the sub-unit in query in April 2011.
Overview ‘was a charade’
In his witness assertion, the officer recalled feeling that the TTP assessment was meant as a “warning shot across the bows” of the unit.
However, he stated, “it was obvious that it was a charade”.
“I was sure at the time and I remain sure that N1802 knew what was happening on the ground,” he stated.
“The speed of N1802’s response and the absence of any further mention or investigation of unlawful activity only fortified my belief that he was aware of what was going on.”
Among the many paperwork launched by the inquiry was a abstract of an interview between N1466 and the Royal Navy Police (RMP) in October 2018.
In the course of the change, the officer described an incident the place members of UKSF1 went to clear a compound and located a room the place folks had been hiding below a mosquito web.
Claims incident was ‘coated up’
The doc learn: “They did not reveal themselves, so the UKSF1 shot at the net until there was no movement.
“When the online was uncovered it was girls and youngsters.
“The incident was covered up and the individual who did the shooting was allegedly given some form of award to make it look legitimate.”
N1466 additionally instructed the inquiry why he was talking out, saying “it’s not loyalty to your organisation to stand by and to watch it go down a sewer”.
Picture:
A British Puma navy helicopter taxiing at nightfall in Afghanistan. File pic: iStock
In his remarks, he referred to the alleged 2012 taking pictures of two youngsters – Imran and Bilal, sons of Hussain Uzbakzai and his spouse Ruqquia Haleem – who had been of their beds.
He stated: “I know a lot of my colleagues… didn’t join UKSF for this sort of behaviour, you know, toddlers to get shot in their beds or random killing.
“It is not particular, it isn’t elite, it isn’t what we stand for and most of us I do not imagine would both want to condone it or to cowl it up.”
He added: “Even when you subscribe to some form of concept that most people who had been killed had been Taliban fighters, which I don’t… Imran and Bilal, at one-and-a-half and three, definitely weren’t.”
Concluding, he said: “UKSF models, not least UKSF1, stand out for his or her proud historical past; the brave and extraordinary feats made by actually outstanding folks.
“The activity that we have discussed in the last few days does not fit with that and somehow the amount of kills and the amount of trigger time have become the metric by which people judge themselves.”
We virtually did not see these essential recordsdata
The testimony from N1466 was extremely anticipated.
He was the assistant chief of workers for operations in UKSF headquarters; his testimony is essential for any probe into whether or not UKSF had a sample of killing in chilly blood and whether or not the Royal Navy Police coated it up.
However secrecy and ambiguity have plagued this inquiry, now in its third yr.
Already, paperwork submitted to chair Sir Charles Haddon-Cave declare commanders defied an order to protect pc proof.
As an alternative, an unknown amount of information on the primary pc server had been completely deleted.
In 2023, the MoD and the RMP, which is accused of failing to analyze the illegal killings claims, had sought sweeping restrictions over materials submitted to the inquiry, citing nationwide safety and privateness.
So, we virtually didn’t get to see the recordsdata launched in the present day.
Regardless that there are few particulars and far of it’s redacted, N1466’s testimony provides to rising allegations that British troopers dedicated battle crimes in Afghanistan and that officers and personnel on the MoD did not adequately examine the claims.
In 2021, the UK enacted the Abroad Operations Act, which supplies the Armed Forces with elevated safety towards authorized scrutiny on abroad actions.
It additionally launched a presumption towards prosecution for legal offences 5 years after an alleged incident and a time restrict on civil claims for torture and homicide.
Victims’ households might imagine justice is unattainable.
The inquiry is below strain to make sure fact isn’t.
Afghan households declare UKSF performed a “campaign of murder” towards civilians, and that senior officers and personnel on the Ministry of Defence (MoD) “sought to prevent adequate investigation”.
Operation Northmoor, a £10m investigation arrange in 2014 to look at allegations of executions by particular forces, together with these of kids, resulted in no prosecutions.
Picture:
The view from inside a British helicopter flying over Helmand province in Afghanistan in 2010. File pic: Reuters
A RMP investigation, dubbed Operation Cestro, resulted in three troopers being referred to the Service Prosecuting Authority, however once more, none of them had been prosecuted.
An MoD spokesperson stated: “The government is fully committed to supporting the independent inquiry relating to Afghanistan as it continues its work, and we are hugely grateful to all former and current defence employees who have so far given evidence.
“We additionally stay dedicated to offering the assist that our particular forces deserve, while sustaining the transparency and accountability that the British folks rightly count on from their armed forces.
“It is appropriate that we await the outcome of the inquiry’s work before commenting further.”
The inquiry continues.
