By Michael Holden
LONDON, Dec 1 (Reuters) – A former senior British officer told a public inquiry that British special forces in Afghanistan appeared to have committed war crimes by executing suspects and despite widespread knowledge in the chain of command nothing was done.
The British Ministry of Defense (MoD) ordered the inquiry after a BBC TV documentary reported that soldiers from the elite Special Air Service (SAS) had killed 54 people during the war in Afghanistan more than ten years ago in suspicious circumstances.
The investigation is looking into a number of night raids by British forces from mid-2010 to mid-2013 when they were part of a US-led coalition fighting the Taliban and other militants.
CONCERN FROM SOLDIERS
British military police have previously held several inquiries into allegations of misconduct by forces in Afghanistan, including those made against the SAS, but the MoD said none found enough evidence for prosecutions.
The purpose of the inquiry is to ascertain whether there was credible information of extra-judicial killings, whether investigations by the military police years later into concerns were conducted properly, and whether illegal killings were concealed.
Its president, senior judge Charles Haddon-Cave, said it was important that anyone who broke the law was referred to the relevant authorities while the cloud of suspicion was lifted from those who had done nothing wrong.
His inquiry previously heard concerns from British soldiers who were in Afghanistan about a sub-unit known as UKSF1, with one saying they were killing men of fighting age during operations regardless of the threat they posed.
In new evidence, given in private but released on Monday, an officer known as N1466, who was then the Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations at UK Special Forces Headquarters, revealed how in 2011 he had grown suspicious of the number of detainees killed during UKSF1 activities.
Based on an examination of official reports after raids, he said that the number of enemies killed in action (EKIA) exceeded the number of weapons recovered, and that reports of detainees repeatedly trying to collect weapons or using grenades after capture did not seem credible.
‘WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WAR CRIMES’
“I will be clear that we are talking about war crimes… we are talking about taking the detainees back to the target and executing them under pretense, the pretense being that they committed violence against the forces,” N1466 told Oliver Glasgow, the lead lawyer for the inquiry.
He said he had raised the matter with the Director of Special Forces, called 1802, but rather than considering criminal action, he had only ordered a review of the operational tactic.
The former officer said he regretted not approaching the military police himself at the time, although he later reported his concerns in 2015.
“I was very troubled by what I strongly suspected was the illegal killing of innocent people, including children,” he said in his witness statement.
“I had come to the view that the issue of extra-judicial killings was not limited to a small number of soldiers of one sub-unit of UKSF1 but was potentially more widespread, and was apparently known to many in the UKSF.”
Other evidence given to the inquiry by former officials and an official of the ministry of defense said that there were frustrations among the soldiers that those who were captured during intelligence-led operations were being released days later as the Afghan judicial system could not cope.
She also heard that there was a great rivalry between the two special forces units UKSFI and UKSF3, to which N1466 belonged.
“I’m also aware that some people out there will want to portray me as… I’m against the [UKSF] as if I have some kind of ax to grind… I would just like to state now that nothing, nothing is further from the truth,” said N1466 in the inquiry.
“… we did not join the UKSF for this kind of behavior, you know, young children to be shot in their beds or random murders. It is not special, it is not elite, it is not what we respond to and I do not believe that most of us would like to either approve it or cover it up.”.
The inquiry continues.
(Reporting by Michael Holden; Editing by Andrew Cawthorne)