A UK Special Forces officer personally rejected 1,585 resettlement applications from Afghans with credible links to British commandos, newly released documents say. The files, disclosed by the Ministry of Defence in court on Thursday, show the unnamed UKSF officer rejected every application referred to him in the summer of 2023, in what was described as a "sprint". The MoD told the court that the officer may have been connected to theongoing inquiry into alleged war crimes committed by the SAS. The admission comes afterthe BBC revealed last week that the UKSF officer– who previously served in Afghanistan - rejected applications from Afghans who may have witnessed the alleged war crimes. Afghan commandos, known as the Triples, supported the SAS and SBS for years in Afghanistan and were in danger of reprisal after the Taliban seized back the country in 2021. But thousands of UK resettlement applications containing credible links to the Triples were rejected. The rejections came at a time when a public inquiry in the UK hadbegun investigating allegations that British special forces had committed war crimeson operations in Afghanistan where the Triples were present. If the Afghan commandos were in the UK, they could be called as witnesses - but the inquiry has no power to compel testimony from foreign nationals who are overseas. MoD officials raised concerns as early as October 2022 about the role of the UKSF in rejecting applications with links to the Triples units, the new documents show. In a witness statement submitted to court, Natalie Moore, the head of the UK's Afghan resettlement team, wrote that she became concerned the UKSF was applying a practice of "automatic rejections" with regard to Triples, giving rise to the "appearance of an unpublished mass rejection policy". In January 2024, following the BBC's revelation of the existence of a UKSF veto over applications, then-Veterans Minister Johnny Mercer warned senior cabinet ministers in writing of a "significant conflict of interest that should be obvious to all". The veto gave the UKSF "decision-making power over... potential witnesses to the inquiry", Mercer said, calling the arrangement "deeply inappropriate". In the same letter, Mercer said that he had seen evidence that five former Triples had been killed by the Taliban after their resettlement applications were rejected. And in a meeting with Ms Moore, he highlighted a case in which an applicant was rejected having "previously confronted UKSF leadership about EJKs [extrajudicial killings] in Afghanistan". Despite concerns first being raised internally in October 2022 - and again between October 2023 and January 2024 - in March 2024 the MoDdenied to both the BBC and Parliamentthat UKSF had had a veto over the former commandos' applications. The Triples - so-called because their designations were CF 333 and ATF 444 - were set up, trained, and paid by the UKSF. When Afghanistan fell to the Taliban, they were judged to be in grave danger of reprisal and were entitled to apply for resettlement to the UK. But more than 2,000 applications judged by resettlement caseworkers to have credible evidence were subsequently rejected by the UKSF. The MoD later announced a review of more than 2,000 rejected applications after finding that the decisions were "not robust". Earlier this week, Armed Forces Minster Luke Pollard announced a new phase of the review to take into account up to 2,500 further cases which may have been improperly rejected. Some of the former Triples who were denied visas have since been tortured and killed by the Taliban, according to testimony from former colleagues, family members and lawyers. The documents disclosed in court on Thursday, as part of a judicial review case brought by a former member of the Triples, reveal that the government launched two investigations that examined the actions of the UKSF and the allegations of a conflict of interest at the heart of the Triples rejections. A summary of one of those investigations, known as Operation X, said it "did not obtain any evidence of hidden motives on the part of the UKSF liaison officer" and found "no evidence of automatic/instant/mass rejections" of the Triples by the UKSF - but provided no evidence to back up those conclusions. It instead concluded that the more than 2,000 rejections of Triples were down to "slack and unprofessional verification processes" by the UKSF liaison officer and "lax procedures followed by the officer in not following up on all lines of enquiry before issuing rejections". More than 600 of those rejections have since been overturned. BBC Panorama reported recently that the rejection of the Triples applications had been overseen by Gen Jenkins, who was head of the UKSF at the time and was promoted last week to be the head of the Royal Navy. In the court documents, the MoD said that Gen Jenkins had no involvement with the applications and that he had not appointed the UKSF officer who rejected them. Tom de la Mare KC, representing the former Triple who brought the case, accused the MoD of breaching its duty of candour in the case by failing to disclose evidence of a blanket practice of rejection of the Triples applications. He further accused the MoD of providing misleading responses to requests for information. Cathryn McGahey KC, representing the MoD, told the court she did "not seek to excuse or underplay in any way the provision of inaccurate answers", and she apologised for the fact that the MoD had previously told the court that no veto existed. The case is examining whether the review of the rejected Triples applications was conducted in a lawful manner. Ms McGahey told the court that "there might have been a better way of doing it, but that doesn't make it unlawful". Daniel Carey, partner at DPG, the law firm acting on behalf of the former Triples, said: "My client spent years asking the MoD to rectify the blanket refusals of Triples personnel and has seen many killed and harmed by the Taliban in that time. "He is pleased that the MoD have agreed to inform everyone of the decisions in their cases and to tell the persons affected whether their cases are under review or not, but it should not have required litigation to achieve basic fairness."
Special Forces officer blocked 1,585 Afghans from UK
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"UK Special Forces Officer Rejected 1,585 Afghan Resettlement Applications Amid War Crimes Inquiry"
Bbc News
7.9
TruthLens AI Summary
A UK Special Forces officer has come under scrutiny for rejecting 1,585 applications from Afghan commandos seeking resettlement in the UK. These rejections, which occurred in the summer of 2023, were disclosed in newly released documents from the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The officer, whose identity remains undisclosed, was reported to have rejected every application referred to him during what was described as a 'sprint'. This situation has raised serious concerns, particularly as the officer's actions coincide with an ongoing inquiry into alleged war crimes involving British special forces in Afghanistan. The Afghan commandos, known as the Triples, had previously supported the UK forces and faced increased danger after the Taliban regained control over Afghanistan in 2021. The rejection of their applications not only jeopardized their safety but also hindered their potential role as witnesses in the inquiry, as the MoD does not have the authority to compel foreign nationals overseas to testify.
The MoD had acknowledged concerns regarding the UKSF's role in these rejections, with evidence suggesting a practice of 'automatic rejections' for applications linked to the Triples. In a witness statement, Natalie Moore, head of the UK's Afghan resettlement team, expressed her apprehension about the implications of the UKSF's decision-making authority over potential witnesses. Following revelations about the UKSF's veto power, former Veterans Minister Johnny Mercer highlighted the conflict of interest this arrangement posed. He noted that some former Triples had been killed by the Taliban after their applications were denied. Despite these alarming findings, the MoD has maintained that there was no evidence of a blanket rejection policy. However, ongoing reviews have found that many of the initial rejections were based on inadequate verification processes. As a result, over 600 of these cases have since been overturned, prompting further investigations into the MoD's handling of the situation and the overall legality of the review process.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The recent revelation regarding the rejection of over 1,500 resettlement applications from Afghans with ties to British Special Forces raises significant ethical and political questions. The documents disclosed indicate that a UK Special Forces officer played a central role in these decisions, particularly in the summer of 2023, amid ongoing investigations into alleged war crimes by British forces in Afghanistan. This situation not only highlights the complex relationship between UK forces and Afghan allies but also suggests a troubling potential cover-up regarding accountability for military actions.
Public Sentiment and Trust Issues
The article is likely aimed at generating public scrutiny and concern regarding the treatment of Afghan allies who supported British forces. The mass rejection of applications, especially those linked to individuals who might testify about war crimes, paints a picture of a government possibly prioritizing its image over the safety of these individuals. This could foster distrust in the military and government institutions, particularly among communities that support humanitarian efforts and accountability for war crimes.
Potential Concealment of Information
There seems to be an undercurrent of concealment regarding the rationale behind these rejections. The Ministry of Defence's admission that the officer's actions may be linked to an inquiry into war crimes suggests a desire to limit the number of witnesses who could offer testimony against British forces. This tacit acknowledgment raises questions about the integrity of the processes in place for resettlement and the genuine commitment to protecting those who aided British efforts in Afghanistan.
Comparison with Other Reports
When compared to other reports on military conduct and resettlement policies, this story highlights a pattern of troubling behavior regarding accountability. Other news sources have similarly reported on the difficulties faced by Afghan interpreters and support staff in gaining access to the UK, which adds context to the current issue. This interconnectedness emphasizes a broader narrative about the UK's obligations to those who served alongside its forces.
Impact on Society and Politics
The implications of this news could ripple through various sectors of society. Politically, it may lead to increased pressure on the government to reassess its resettlement policies and to ensure that those who face danger due to their association with British forces are adequately protected. Public opinion could shift, leading to calls for transparency and accountability, potentially affecting upcoming elections and public trust in government.
Target Audience and Support Base
The article likely resonates with human rights advocates, veterans, and communities concerned with ethical military practices. Those who prioritize humanitarian support for Afghan allies may find this revelation particularly disconcerting, as it challenges the narrative of the UK's commitment to its allies.
Market Implications
In terms of market impact, the news may influence defense contractors and companies engaged with military operations abroad. If public sentiment shifts towards greater scrutiny of military spending and operations, this could impact stock prices in defense sectors.
Geopolitical Relevance
From a global perspective, this news aligns with current discussions on military accountability in conflict zones. It may influence international perceptions of the UK, particularly in contexts related to humanitarian obligations and the treatment of former allies.
Considering the tone and framing of the article, it does not exhibit overt manipulative traits but rather raises necessary questions about transparency and military ethics. The language used is factual yet charged with implications of negligence and betrayal, which could sway public opinion.
In conclusion, the reliability of this news stems from the documented evidence provided by official sources, though the context raises concerns about the motivations behind the decisions made by the UK Special Forces officer. The systemic issues highlighted in the article warrant attention and scrutiny.