Lets give thanks to our Special Forces.

[Deleted member 323070]

No they can't

You're just denying anything and everything:

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.

Some of those denied visas were subsequently tortured and killed by the Taliban, according to former colleagues, family members and lawyers.

Your supposed time in the army failed to bring this to your attention:

Yes, serving military personnel can be compelled to attend inquiries. The Armed Forces (Service Inquiries) Regulations 2008 outlines the process for requiring witnesses to attend and provide evidence. Regulation 16 creates offences for non-compliance with a witness notice. Additionally, the UK Parliament notes that serving personnel may be ordered to attend.

Or maybe you were never there.

Fortunately there a re some honourable people in the military.

The rejections and reported reprisals have outraged some former members of British special forces. "What's happened is horrendous. It is a betrayal and it shames us all," one former UK Special Forces officer told Panorama.

 

[Highway Man]

Look at history.
As mentioned before, WW1 and 2, POWS were treated with respect, as were injured soldiers.
Since then many western nations have started playing dirty, and 'our enemies' have responded likewise.

You (we) reap what we sow.

Rubbish, Isis and the Taliban do not give two hoots for human rights for their own people. Get captured by them would be a fate worse than topping yourself quickly.

 

[Highway Man]

You're just denying anything and everything:


Fortunately there a re some honourable people in the military.

You are easily fooled is all I can say. Or very nieve.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

You are easily fooled is all I can say. Or very nieve.

You're in blatant denial of the obvious.

 

[Highway Man]

You're in blatant denial of the obvious.

Why? Because I am right and you are wrong?

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Why? Because I am right and you are wrong?

Your lights have gone out, but you're denying it.

 

[Highway Man]

Your lights have gone out, but you're denying it.

Answer this then if you are correct. At the end of any operation everything is recorded, either by how many prisoners were taken and how many kills were done. Also it would be normal to have a head cam on. Then there is a de brief where everything has to be explained.
So why has these witnesses who you assume are ex UKSF not said anything at any time during these de briefings. Also why speak to the BBC over it and not the MOD? If they witnessed war crimes and were so cut up over it, what did they do about it at the time they happened?

 

[Highway Man]

You're just denying anything and everything:

Your supposed time in the army failed to bring this to your attention:

Or maybe you were never there.

Fortunately there a re some honourable people in the military.

Sorry but you are totally insane and have no fooking clue. You are just a mere troll looking for an argument, however arguing about things you know nothing about makes you look stupid. Right now you look pretty stupid. How is the enquiry going to get these witnesses into the enquiry when the BBC will not pass over their identities to the enquiry? They allegedly promised them complete immunity to talk to the reporter only. The reporter has only passed the information of war crimes that they have allegedly uncovered. Therefore, no witnesses. Only the enquiry is asking the head of the armed forces questions, he is shrugging his shoulders at every question and rightly so.

 

[Highway Man]

Thought so muppet. Ta Ra.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Answer this then if you are correct. At the end of any killings everything is recorded, either by how many prisoners were taken and how many kills were done. Also it would be normal to have a head cam on. Then there is a de brief where everything has to be explained.
So why has these witnesses who you assume are ex UKSF not said anything at any time during these de briefings. Also why speak to the BBC over it and not the MOD? If they witnessed war crimes and were so cut up over it, what did they do about it at the time they happened?

They have reported to their superiors, but those in charge have covered up the reports.
That's what the inquiry is about!
You really are arguing from a position of ignorance.

 

[Highway Man]

They have reported to their superiors, but those in charge have covered up the reports.
That's what the inquiry is about!
You really are arguing from a position of ignorance.

Muppet. The MOD doesn't cover these things up.

 

[Highway Man]

A statutory public inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005, can compel any individual, including SAS members, to give evidence. The inquiry chair can issue notices and, if necessary, apply to the High Court for a witness summons to enforce attendance, potentially leading to arrest for non-compliance. This power is applicable in cases where SAS actions are under scrutiny, such as the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan. However, there are potential challenges, including national security concerns that may lead to the Ministry of Defence raising objections and the need to protect witnesses through anonymity or restriction orders. The inquiry must balance the need for transparency with these considerations.
In other words, no one is going on a witness stand.
Muppet.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Sorry but you are totally insane and have no fooking clue. You are just a mere troll looking for an argument, however arguing about things you know nothing about makes you look stupid. Right now you look pretty stupid. How is the enquiry going to get these witnesses into the enquiry when the BBC will not pass over their identities to the enquiry? They allegedly promised them complete immunity to talk to the reporter only. The reporter has only passed the information of war crimes that they have allegedly uncovered. Therefore, no witnesses. Only the enquiry is asking the head of the armed forces questions, he is shrugging his shoulders at every question and rightly so.

They have reported to their superiors, but those in charge have covered up the reports.
That's what the inquiry is about!
You really are arguing from a position of ignorance.

The army knows who they are.

Prime Minister David Cameron was repeatedly warned during his tenure that UK Special Forces were killing civilians in Afghanistan.

Top UK Special Forces general oversaw blocking of Afghan 'war-crime' witnesses to Britain
Knowledge of the alleged crimes was not confined to small teams or individual squadrons, according to the testimony. Within the UK Special Forces command structure, "everyone knew" what was happening, said one veteran.

"I'm not taking away from personal responsibility, but everyone knew," he said. "There was implicit approval for what was happening.
"Mr Karzai "consistently, repeatedly mentioned this issue", former Afghan national security adviser Dr Rangin Dadfar Spanta told Panorama. He said Lord Cameron could have been left in no doubt that there were allegations of civilians, including children, being killed during operations carried out by UK Special Forces.
The Afghan president was "so consistent with his complaints about night raids, civilian casualties and detentions that there was no senior Western diplomat or military leader who would have missed the fact that this was a major irritant for him," said Gen Douglas Lute, a former US ambassador to Nato.

Gen Lute said it would have been "extraordinarily unusual if there were a claim against British forces that the British chain of command was not aware of".

Read the reports.

Oh, sorry your eyes are shut and you refuse to open them.

 

[Highway Man]

The army knows who they are.



Read the reports.

Oh, sorry your eyes are shut and you refuse to open them.

The army will not be giving anyone up, The UKSF have refused to speak to them.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

The MOD doesn't cover these things up.

A statutory public inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005, can compel any individual, including SAS members, to give evidence. The inquiry chair can issue notices and, if necessary, apply to the High Court for a witness summons to enforce attendance, potentially leading to arrest for non-compliance. This power is applicable in cases where SAS actions are under scrutiny, such as the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan. However, there are potential challenges, including national security concerns that may lead to the Ministry of Defence raising objections and the need to protect witnesses through anonymity or restriction orders. The inquiry must balance the need for transparency with these considerations.
In other words, no one is going on a witness stand.

You don't see the irony in your comments?
I've highlighted the relevant bits for you.

Here's the what happened with the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Sorry to burst your bubble of denial:

Parachute Regiment soldiers were compelled to provide evidence about Bloody Sunday during the Saville Inquiry. While the inquiry was primarily held in Londonderry, the soldiers who were present on the day of the shootings appeared in London for security reasons. They gave evidence anonymously and were not granted immunity from prosecution,