They call it a witch hunt.
Twelve men, some now retired, who once served in the most secretive arms of British imperial power (the SAS, SBS and SRR) may yet face murder charges. The Mail calls them heroes. Others call them killers. The law, still, should call them accountable.
Let’s begin here: if we believe in the rule of law, we believe in it for everyone. That includes the enemies of the state and those who act in the state’s name. It includes civilians and generals, terrorists and soldiers, prime ministers and private contractors. If you grant impunity to one category, you set fire to the very principle you pretend to uphold.
But the campaign now being waged by the Daily Mail and ex-military brass (Stop the SAS Betrayal, as they have branded it) insists otherwise. That elite troops should not merely be protected from malicious prosecution (a fair concern) but exempted altogether from legal scrutiny. That “legacy issues” from Northern Ireland should be “drawn under a line”, even when a coroner rules four men were unlawfully killed. That Special Forces are too “merciful” and “valuable” to ever be held responsible.
It is special pleading, pure and simple. It must be rejected.
The Exceptionalism Trap
What we’re witnessing is not a debate about fairness. It’s a reaction against accountability. This latest intervention. Once again backed by retired officers, defence commentators, and the Mail’s front pages. Claims that Britain’s most elite fighters are being hounded in their old age. But that only makes sense if you believe the uniform exempts you from justice.
They call it “lawfare”. But what they mean is: how dare anyone apply the law to us?
The case at the heart of this is Clonoe, County Tyrone, 1992. Four IRA men shot dead. The weapons they carried, we are told, were real. The threat, immediate. The context, dangerous. Yet: a judge (Coroner), with access to testimony and evidence, ruled the killings unlawful. That should trouble us. Not because it “undermines morale” but because it challenges the myth that war, especially our war, can be clean.
Labour’s intention to repeal parts of the Troubles Legacy Act (an amnesty law widely condemned by human rights groups) has reopened the question. The Mail and its allies are furious. But the European Convention on Human Rights is clear: states have an obligation to investigate deaths caused by their agents. “Reconciliation” without truth is a lie.
No Special Treatment for Special Forces
There is a long history of Western powers using “elite” units to carry out operations that exist in a legal grey zone. Rendition flights. Black sites. Unacknowledged drone strikes. Kill lists. These actions, by design, avoid oversight. Now, those who carried them out wish to avoid consequence.
But accountability is not betrayal. It is the basis of democracy. If an SAS soldier unlawfully kills someone, they should face investigation, just as a civilian would. Just as a police officer would. Just as a soldier in any other country might, were the UK the accuser.
There is no argument, moral or legal, for exempting British forces from the very norms Britain claims to promote. That kind of chauvinism does not honour the armed forces. It drags them into the mire of impunity.
A Culture of Secrecy
If we are to understand this campaign, we must also understand what it’s protecting. The Special Forces are not just elite units; they are the military wing of the deep state. Their operations are off-the-books. Their oversight limited. Their power immense.
Calls to halt “witch hunts” are really calls to preserve this structure. To keep the public away from what was done in their name. Whether in Ballymurphy or Baghdad, Helmand or Homs.
The fear. Among the generals, politicians and newspaper editors alike. Is that if you pull too hard on one thread, the whole fabric of state violence might unravel.
They are right to be afraid. They should be.
Sympathy with Resistance
None of this is to romanticise war or martyrdom. But we must be clear: the British state was (and remains) an imperial power. To recognise that is not to glorify every action of the IRA, but to understand the logic of resistance. As Bernadette Devlin once said, “The last violent act in a very long cycle is when the people on the bottom strike back. That’s not when the violence starts…” Sympathy for those who fought British rule is not the same as endorsing every tactic they used. But empires do not retreat willingly. From Derry to Dhofar, those living under occupation have often found that the ballot box was blocked, and the boot was not. To condemn all violence by the oppressed while sanctifying the violence of the state is not moral clarity. It is colonial hypocrisy.
The Real Cowardice
Veterans deserve support. But that support must include honesty. Honesty about what war does. About what soldiers are trained to do. Also about what happens when you leave legality behind.
It is not “moral cowardice” to investigate potential war crimes. It is cowardice to suppress those investigations. It is cowardice to say that because someone served their country, they cannot have done wrong. It is cowardice to cry betrayal when all that’s being asked for is truth.
Justice Is Not Optional
The calls for “closure” are premature. Closure, if it comes at all, must follow truth and not bury it. The families of the dead have rights, too. So do the victims of state violence in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Their suffering does not count for less because the bullets came from a British rifle.
To say otherwise is to make a mockery of justice.
No one is above the law. Not Islamist militants. Not SAS soldiers. Not the British state. If we forget that. If we allow a sand coloured beret to replace legal principle, then what we’re preserving isn’t bravery. It’s impunity.
Impunity, history tells us, is always the beginning of something darker.
