Veterans have criticized a recent BBC program about alleged war crimes committed by the British SAS for relying solely on “hearsay” and video taken by Australian special forces.
One British SAS squad allegedly committed 54 dubious killings during a six-month tour of Afghanistan in 2010–2011, according to the Panorama investigation.
The episode included a graphic footage of an Australian SAS soldier shooting an Afghan man who was cowering in a field unarmed to death.
Chris Ryan, a former SAS sergeant, criticized the use of the footage and an Australian SAS veteran’s interviews in the episode.
He called it “a new low” as the BBC used SASR (Australian SAS) soldiers and footage to support its unfounded claims against the British SAS.
If you remove the video or hearsay, what remains is, at best, a reporter’s interpretation or opinion.
Bashir is on par with this.
Rear Admiral Christopher John Parry, a retired commander of the Royal Navy, issued a caution against deeming British SAS soldiers “guilty by association.”
Members of the Australian SAS, which is distinct from its British counterpart, are currently on trial for murder.
When it was revealed that Australian special forces members had committed illegal executions, it caused a significant scandal in the nation.
According to a report, captives were executed to “blood” junior soldiers.
Similar accusations against the British SAS were investigated in the BBC documentary SAS Death Squads Exposed: A British War Crime?
On the condition of anonymity and off-camera, it spoke to former SAS members who claimed that British soldiers had also committed “war crimes,” such as shooting unarmed prisoners.
The show’s title has a question mark, which would indicate BBC reluctance to make such grave accusations.
Afghan man is sought after by Australian SAS forces and a dog.
The BBC further asserted that top officers, including former British Army chief General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, failed to report the suspected murders and failed to provide the military police with the evidence that was in the possession of UK Special Forces.
According to the BBC, Sir Mark declined to respond.
The Ministry of Defence was incensed by the broadcast and accused the corporation of endangering British soldiers on the front lines by using “subjective reporting.”
But in a startling move last night, the MoD said it was inviting anyone with information or testimony to come forward, and military police were prepared to look into any “new” evidence.
According to Newsnight’s Rear Admiral Christopher John Parry, the broadcast featured “serious claims” that “need to be probed if there is new evidence.”
But he said, “The SAS are highly trained, they know exactly what they’re doing, and they’re always thinking about hearts and minds.
I suspect they wouldn’t do this if they weren’t doing it for a good purpose.
My observation is that they conduct themselves professionally and humanely.
If there is anything to this, I believe the soldiers themselves will be eager to figure out which of their fellow soldiers was responsible if it actually happened.
I don’t think we can extrapolate what the Australians did to what the British did, he continued.
That is guilt by association, and any attorney would easily navigate that.
The SAS units that, starting in 2009, were tasked with going after Taliban leaders and the bomb-making networks that frequently caused casualties with improvised explosive devices were the subject of Panorama’s investigation.
The documentary claimed, however, that it had found proof that they were in fact “killing squads,” with soldiers employing a “shoot to kill policy” because they believed that, if they were apprehended, the suspects would soon be released.
Additionally, it claimed to have discovered proof of repeated murders of detainees who had been shackled.
According to Panorama, official accounts of raids revealed a pattern in which suspects were shot dead after “allegedly snatching a weapon” before being let back inside buildings to assist with searches.
Haji Ibrahim, a previous district governor who had collaborated with the British, was slain during a raid in one incident on November 29, 2010.
The SAS’s official account of what happened states that Mr. Ibrahim was first arrested before being brought back into a building to assist with the search.
He was subsequently “shot and killed… when he displayed hostile intent by wielding a hand-grenade,” according to a military report Panorama received.
Yet when a BBC reporter traveled to Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban, his family claimed that his hands were shackled before he was “killed.”
The SAS squadrons “repeatedly executed persons after they had been arrested,” according to UK military investigations.
In a another incident, nine individuals were shot and killed in a hotel room, but only three firearms were found.
Innocent bystanders were reportedly caught up in the operations as a result of intelligence errors, according to Panorama.
One man who was present at the target-selection sessions in 2011 told the program that there were severe organizational flaws made at every level.
Because we were unfamiliar with the communities in Afghanistan, the potential for misidentification was very significant.
The tribes were alien to us. B
ecause of this, there will be a ton of errors made by the sausage machine that creates these names.
According to sources within the UK Special Forces, senior officials at the London headquarters were concerned about the number of persons dying during the raids.
The SAS tales of killings, which frequently result in far more people killed than weapons purportedly retrieved, have raised worry, according to internal documents reviewed by Panorama.
According to the documentary, a senior officer at UK Special Forces HQ said: “Too many people were being murdered on night missions, and the explanations didn’t make sense.
“After being detained, a person shouldn’t pass away.
At HQ, the fact that it kept happening alarmed them.
At the moment, it was obvious that something was off.
Insiders who worked on Operation Northmoor, a probe into the conduct of British troops in Afghanistan, allegedly claimed they were prevented from learning the truth.
Without wishing to be named, a senior Royal Military Police officer told Panorama that he believed there was pressure from high to end the probe.
No matter how much evidence we were able to obtain, it became increasingly obvious to me that these cases would never be allowed to proceed to trial.
Ex-Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) General Sir David Richards stated: “In my experience, disturbing incidents of the kind shown by Panorama are exceedingly infrequent in the British armed forces.
That being said, I would order a full inquiry into the events depicted if I were still Chief of the Defence Staff given how compelling the program is.
I am confident that the present CDS, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, will carry out this directive.
The MOD stated last night: “We consider that Panorama’s program rushes to arbitrary conclusions from claims that have already been thoroughly probed.”
The claims regarding the behavior of UK forces were thoroughly and independently investigated by two service police operations.
“Neither inquiry turned up enough evidence to pursue charges.”
Any suggestion to the contrary is reckless, untrue, and endangers the safety and reputation of our valiant soldiers.
The MOD would not be hindered in its consideration of any fresh evidence.
However, if this is not the case, we strongly disagree with this subjective reporting.
According to the BBC, this is the result of a four-year inquiry.
The program’s proof included internal military documents that revealed grave concerns that senior officers had voiced.
The public’s interest in reporting such issues is unwavering.
Since 2019, the SAS’s shooting of unarmed captives has been officially exonerated by the RMP.
The inefficiency of Operation Northmoor and the officers’ apparent unwillingness or incapacity to interrogate witnesses drew harsh criticism.
Sir Jonathan Murphy, a former chief of Merseyside Police, described an RMP investigation into “extrajudicial death claims” as “flawed and consequently ineffectual.”
Op Northmoor was given a thorough review by Sir Jonathan, who concluded that operation was “certain to fail,” “far too sluggish,” and had failed to secure army witness testimony.
He stated that only one witness who was present at the scene of one of the killings had been spoken to throughout the course of a two and a half year period.
Zaman Sultani, a South Asia researcher for Amnesty International, responded to the BBC’s inquiry into the repeated questionable circumstances killings of unarmed Afghans by UK Special Forces in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2011 by saying:
“Amnesty International wants an efficient and open investigation into the claims made against the UK Special Forces in Afghanistan, one that brings justice to the victims and holds the offenders accountable.”