By John Q. Hosedrinker 
An inquiry into alleged unlawful killings by British SAS units in Afghanistan has heard accusations of a cover-up by former UK special forces directors and other senior military officers. A whistleblower, identified as N1466, reported concerns about extrajudicial shootings, including the deaths of children, as early as 2011, but claims the chain of command failed to intervene. The whistleblower alleged that the director suppressed information and ordered a review of tactics to avoid scrutiny, despite awareness of the underlying issues. Evidence suggests the killings continued into 2013, with N1466 citing concerns about planted weapons and executions of detainees.
Read the original article here
UK Special Forces (UKSF) tried to cover up Special Air Service (SAS) war crimes (killings of civilians including children) in Afghanistan, whistleblower alleges, and the allegations themselves are truly shocking, aren’t they? It’s the kind of thing that makes you sit back and just… process. A senior whistleblower has come forward, claiming that the chain of command failed to stop extrajudicial killings, including the devastating murder of two small children. The most unsettling part is that these alleged atrocities were allowed to continue for years, from early 2011 to 2013, after the alarm was initially raised.
The potential scale of unlawful killings during that period is truly horrifying to contemplate. The whole situation just makes you realize that Afghanistan, in the wake of 9/11, was a place of immense pain and chaos for everyone involved. Unfortunately, for those who have grown up with the knowledge of past cover-ups, especially in places like Belfast, this isn’t exactly surprising news. The lengths to which governments go to protect their own, to shut down inquiries and protect the accused, is a tragic pattern.
This situation calls to mind other scandals, such as the Australian SAS and their actions in Afghanistan. It brings to mind what happened with the torture at Abu Ghraib, which was linked to similar programs that went on in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. You start to wonder about the “secret prisons” that have been reported across Europe and Asia. When you think about it, the whole situation is a black stain on the reputation of everyone involved and makes a complete mockery of any country that claims to value human rights.
It really does feel like a case of the accused pointing fingers. We’ve seen it before, the photos from Abu Ghraib that were deemed “too inflammatory” to release. What could be worse than what we saw, and why weren’t images of women and children being tortured released? It’s a reminder of a history of disregard for foreign lives, of interference in investigations, and of the legal protection afforded to soldiers accused of murder.
Maybe we should question why we put armed forces into situations where they’re forced to act as counter-terror and peacekeeping forces, when the enemy has no uniform, is bound by no laws, and will use women and children as human shields. The armed forces are held to an impossible standard where anyone can gun them down without identifying themselves. Instead, they’re always hiding behind the civilians, and yet we act surprised when people get caught in the crossfire.
The initial mission was flawed. We shouldn’t have been there as peacekeepers, especially since the Afghans couldn’t hold their own in the end. A lot of good people died, and innocent people got caught in the crossfire. Blaming the “chain of command” is like minimizing the murders, treating them as separate little accidents.
But let’s be honest, there’s a pattern, especially when you look at how the British Army has handled similar situations in the past. It’s about protecting the soldiers, interfering with inquiries, and disregarding the value of foreign lives. It’s a history that should make you sick. The abuse of their semi-extrajudicial freedom of movement should be investigated.
Ideally, soldiers in these roles should be of impeccable character, given the immense power they wield. But that’s not always the case, is it? We often see soldiers portrayed as the “best” of us, highly skilled, highly trained, the epitome of intelligence and character. Maybe the entertainment industry’s constant portrayal of special operators as heroes gives us a distorted view of reality.
The whole “special operator” theme is seriously overdone in film and television; it’s practically fetishized at this point. 9/11 really did a number on the world. It’s important to remember that this article is focused on UK forces. Stop committing war crimes, or stop making people aware of the truth no matter how uncomfortable? If it was just innocent people getting caught in the crossfire it would be one thing. Some of the time, unfortunately, it was murderous psychopaths in uniform killing people for sport.
It’s not about blaming anyone; it’s about holding those accountable who are accused of committing war crimes. The standard should be not to kill children sleeping in their beds. We do this with police officers and detectives too. City, county, state, and feds all get this treatment.
“Impeccable character” is a difficult concept, isn’t it? One of Australia’s Special Forces leaders, a highly decorated soldier, was later alleged to have committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Although the inquiry used coercive powers to get its evidence, he wasn’t charged. The point is, humans are fallible. You can’t rely on one “impeccable” guy to keep everything legit. Checks and balances are essential, and they often seem to be lacking. There is zero accountability for these people.
When there is no accountability, impunity will rise and flourish. Some of them are probably just straight up criminals. Tier 1 special operations groups like the SAS are especially concerning. They train rigorously, using live ammo, in CQB tactics and target identification. Whoever murdered the sleeping parents and toddlers definitely did so intentionally. The arrest of John McAleese, who was involved in Operation Nimrod and allegedly inspired a Call of Duty character, on child pornography charges, also raises questions about who we trust with these positions and the need for accountability.
We’ve been through a lot as a country. We might have a mistaken sense of invulnerability. But let’s be real, we’re still relatively new on the global stage. I hope sanity and justice prevail in the end – without justice, there will be no end and little hope.
In the US the Commander in Chief is the president. The president has a unique position where the orders they give can’t be questioned or investigated, and most special forces are under executive order. They would not be investigated or brought to trial due to that situation. In the U.K. it’s difficult. The commander of the armed forces is the King (previously the Queen) and while the government can issue orders to them there is no concept of an executive order. This is the same for the courts, the courts answer to the crown and not the government. Consequently even special forces soldiers are open to investigation. It’s why this new story exists, while no such investigations happened in the US.