The refusal of asylum applications by Afghan commandos who fought alongside British forces raises fears of a cover-up amid a High Court investigation into alleged unlawful killings by UK Special Forces between 2010 and 2013.
A significant controversy is unfolding regarding the asylum applications of Afghan commandos, known as the "Triples," who fought alongside British forces. Recent revelations have emerged concerning the rejection of 1,585 applications by a Special Forces officer, whose actions appear to be safeguarding sensitive information regarding British military conduct in Afghanistan. These commandos, still at risk from Taliban reprisals, are seen as potential witnesses to alleged war crimes committed by UK Special Forces during operations from 2010 to 2013.
Court documents highlight that the officer dismissed every request, despite the known danger these former soldiers face since the Taliban's resurgence. This rejection coincides ominously with the initiation of a High Court inquiry probing allegations that three separate SAS (Special Air Service) units executed around 80 Afghan captives during night missions. These operations were reportedly conducted in collaboration with the Triples, raising questions about the motivations behind denying their asylum.
Former veterans minister Johnny Mercer has publicly expressed his outrage over the treatment of the Triples. Speaking to a judicial inquiry, he described his efforts to highlight these issues to senior civil servants, only to be met with defensiveness. Mercer stated, "When I raised this as happening to the most senior civil servants in UK Government, one in particular from UK Special Forces claimed he was 'offended' that I could make such a suggestion." This dismissal of valid concerns has spurred Mercer's readiness to support any potential legal action against the government, categorising the situation as "criminal negligence" while voicing fears for the safety of those left vulnerable by the government’s actions.
The ongoing inquiry is exploring troubling allegations that at least 80 Afghan civilians may have been subject to extrajudicial killings by UK forces, a claim bolstered by accounts of a systematic approach to eliminate "fighting-age males" during tactical raids. Testimonies from bereaved families and military insiders assert a culture within special operations that exhibited a "casual disregard for life." Amidst these accusations, serious doubts have arisen over practices of data handling and alleged cover-ups of unlawful killings believed to have involved UK troops.
Adding to the complications are claims by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that there was no overarching policy preventing the Triples from seeking asylum. However, this assertion faced a swift reversal during the inquiry, revealing a bureaucratic obstacle that effectively blocked their requests. The MoD's contradictory stance raises further concerns over accountability and promptness in resolving the applications of those who served alongside British forces. These allegations not only paint a troubling picture of military conduct in Afghanistan but also exacerbate the plight of Afghan allies now seeking protection in the UK.
The inquiry into the conduct of British special forces underscores the broader implications of military actions and the responsibilities owed to local allies. As the investigation continues, it will shed light on the intersection of ethical accountability, military honour, and the urgent need for a more humane approach to asylum seekers who risked their lives alongside UK personnel. The moral and legal responsibilities to those who served must be confronted, particularly as the deadline for judicial findings approaches later this year.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative presents recent developments regarding Afghan commandos' asylum applications and UK Special Forces' conduct in Afghanistan. Similar reports have emerged in the past year, with the earliest known publication date being February 2024. The report includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. The narrative is based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. However, the presence of recycled content and the recency of similar reports suggest a moderate freshness score. The narrative includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/19/uk-special-forces-blocked-resettlement-applications-from-elite-afghan-troops?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative includes direct quotes from former veterans minister Johnny Mercer, such as his description of the situation as "criminal negligence." These quotes have been used in earlier reports, indicating potential reuse of content. Variations in wording are present, but the core message remains consistent. No online matches were found for some quotes, suggesting potential originality or exclusivity. The reuse of quotes from earlier material raises concerns about the originality of the content.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The narrative originates from the Daily Mail, a reputable organisation. However, the presence of recycled content and the recency of similar reports suggest a moderate reliability score. The narrative includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher reliability score but should still be flagged.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative presents plausible claims regarding Afghan commandos' asylum applications and UK Special Forces' conduct in Afghanistan. These claims are supported by recent reports from reputable sources, including the Financial Times and Reuters. The inclusion of updated data strengthens the plausibility of the narrative. However, the presence of recycled content and the recency of similar reports suggest a moderate plausibility score. The narrative includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher plausibility score but should still be flagged. ([ft.com](https://www.ft.com/content/24106a75-62ae-4c94-ae50-46491f3e14cb?utm_source=openai), [reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk-special-forces-soldiers-tell-inquiry-afghan-murder-concerns-2025-01-08/?utm_source=openai))
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative presents recent developments regarding Afghan commandos' asylum applications and UK Special Forces' conduct in Afghanistan. While the content includes updated data, it recycles older material and includes quotes that have been used in earlier reports, raising concerns about originality. The source is reputable, but the presence of recycled content and the recency of similar reports suggest a moderate level of confidence in the overall assessment.