logo
Taliban: We had the ‘kill list' all along – and are hunting them down

Taliban: We had the ‘kill list' all along – and are hunting them down

Telegraph3 days ago
The Taliban claims the leaked list of Afghans who helped Britain has been in its possession since 2022, and it has been hunting down those named ever since.
The so-called 'kill list' contains the names of 25,000 Afghans who were applying for asylum – soldiers who had worked with the British Army, and their family members.
It became the subject of a legal cover-up after it was leaked in 2022, with successive governments spending billions over two years to secretly relocate thousands of Afghans to the UK to avoid Taliban reprisals.
Now Taliban figures claim to have had the list all along, potentially rendering the secret plot pointless. A senior Taliban official told The Telegraph: 'We got the list from the internet during the very first days when it was leaked.'
The official said many individuals on the list had fled Afghanistan or gone into hiding, but that the Taliban had hired groups to monitor their homes and relatives' houses around the clock.
'A special unit has been launched to find them and make sure they do not work with Britain,' the official added. 'We've been calling and visiting their family members to track them down.
'Senior figures in the establishment in Kandahar are pressuring officials in Kabul to find them. They believe these individuals are still working with the British, and say the problem must be dealt with.'
A second Taliban official told The Telegraph that the hunt for individuals named in the document had intensified in recent months, with names handed over to border forces to stop them from leaving the country.
Many only discovered they were on the list when they tried to cross Taliban-controlled borders.
'The border forces have had the list for the past few months and have orders not to let anyone leave,' the Taliban official said from Kabul. 'These people are seen as traitors, and the plan has been to find as many of them as possible.
'Whoever leaked that file is actually helping us. There may be a general amnesty in place, but spies cannot escape justice.'
The Government has accepted that the court battle could have put the Afghans in even greater danger.
Until Tuesday at noon, an unprecedented super-injunction obtained by the government in 2023 prevented the media, Parliament or anyone else revealing details of a £7 billion scheme to grant asylum to thousands of Afghans, which was instigated as a result of the data breach.
The media was also banned from reporting the fact that the leak had happened.
Ministers obtained the super-injunction – the first ever granted to a British government – on the basis that lives would be at risk if the public, and by extension the Taliban, knew that a list of nearly 25,000 names had briefly appeared online after it was accidentally shared by a Royal Marine in 2022.
The injunction was kept in place for nearly two years despite grave misgivings from a judge about the public being misled.
Mr Justice Chamberlain, the judge who lifted the injunction, said there was 'a significant chance that it was in fact endangering' some of the Afghans being relocated to the UK, and the effect on those who were not being brought to the UK was 'likely to be adverse overall'.
He argued that by going to such lengths to keep the scheme a secret, the government could have 'added more value' to the leaked list in the eyes of the Taliban, who would be aware of people being flown to the UK.
The British government responded to the data breach by launching Operation Rubific, a covert mission to contain the leak and prevent public disclosure of the breach.
About £7 billion of taxpayers' money was allocated to handle the fallout, including what officials called the largest covert peacetime evacuation operation. Nearly 24,000 Afghans affected by the breach have been brought to the UK or will be relocated in the future.
Because of the Taliban's tight restrictions on information in Afghanistan, many people do not know they are on the list.
One of those affected fled to neighbouring Iran nearly two years ago, after the Taliban began searching for him in his home town in western Afghanistan.
A relative told The Telegraph: 'He and his family escaped to Iran after hearing about the list. Since then, Taliban fighters have regularly come to my house and the homes of other relatives, asking about him.'
'They keep pressuring us to reveal his whereabouts. They once arrested me and beat me for a day. My uncle served with the special forces. The Taliban keep saying he must come with them for questioning.
'It's putting everyone in the family at risk – being related to someone on a Taliban kill list is a death sentence. They have all his details – his name, his wife's name, even his children's names.
'We were shocked when they listed them. If they can't find him, they've said they'll kill another family member instead. 'The blood of a spy is in your veins,' they told us.'
The man remains in Iran, but the Islamic Republic is now forcing him – and hundreds of other Afghans – back into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
'He has nowhere to go,' the relative said. 'If he's deported, he'll be killed. They have everything on him.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ohio mosque worshippers reel after imam is detained by Ice: ‘No one is ever truly safe'
Ohio mosque worshippers reel after imam is detained by Ice: ‘No one is ever truly safe'

The Guardian

time27 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Ohio mosque worshippers reel after imam is detained by Ice: ‘No one is ever truly safe'

A week after the detention of their imam, Egyptian-born Ayman Soliman, worshippers at the Clifton mosque in Cincinnati, Ohio, are still in shock. Soliman was detained on 9 July while attending a regular check-in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) officers, weeks after being told that his asylum status had been terminated, a provision that he had held for more than seven years. 'People in the community are saying that if [Ice] can come for our leaders, our scholars and our elders, then we are nothing,' says Tala Ali, the chair of the Clifton mosque. 'They're scared, they're angry. They're also broken-hearted; they're praying for him.' Lawyers for Soliman say that US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) alleges he provided material support to a so-called 'Tier III' terrorist organization, namely the Muslim Brotherhood, through his involvement with Al-Gameya al-Shareya, a prominent charity organization in Egypt. 'Tier III' refers to groups that are not officially designated terrorist organizations by the US Department of State, but which an asylum officer may determine to be as such on a case-by-case basis. Soliman, a former chaplain at Cincinnati children's hospital, came to the US in 2014 and was granted asylum status in 2018. In Egypt, Soliman worked as a freelance journalist for a Spanish outlet during the popular uprising against and overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, the former Egyptian president, in 2011 and in the tumultuous years that preceded Egypt's return to authoritarian rule two years later. He was one of nearly 15,000 Egyptians granted affirmative asylum in the US – the third most from any country in the nine years that followed the Egyptian military's 2013 coup and subsequent crackdown. Having previously lived in Oregon and Chicago, Soliman has said he believes his life would be at risk were he forced to return to Egypt. He received notice that the process to terminate his asylum status was under way last December. Soliman is set to appear via video link before an immigration judge to hear his case on 22 July, the day before he is due to have an immigration bond hearing, which would determine whether he can be released while his case is pending. As with thousands of others caught up in the Trump administration's anti-immigration drive, Soliman's case has been marked by confusion and an apparent arbitrary series of processes. The government's reasoning is 'illogical, and its conclusion is wrong', says Julia Healy, an attorney at the Law Office of Nazly Mamedova, a firm representing Soliman. 'USCIS terminated Ayman's asylum status by conducting wild leaps of association: jumping from Ayman's membership in a very well-known charity organization in Egypt, to alleging that because of his membership in this organization, he provided material support to the Muslim Brotherhood, which USCIS is calling a 'Tier III Terrorist Organization'.' Neither the Muslim Brotherhood nor Al-Gameya al-Shareya are designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the US government. On 9 July, the Department of Homeland Security's assistant secretary for public affairs, Tricia McLaughlin, further muddied the waters writing on X that Soliman was flagged for being on an FBI 'terror watchlist'. The admission has followed a years-long attempt by Soliman and his legal representatives to find out if and why he was on such a list. A lawsuit filed by Soliman's lawyers against several Biden-era officials last December claims that he '(R)easonably believes his name appears in the TSDS (Terrorist Screening Database) because of its impact on his immigration proceedings' and that his fingerprints do not match those recorded in that database. 'This USCIS termination letter is the only explanation we have of these alleged connections, and they are so incredibly weak that they appear to be a pretext for targeting Ayman,' says Healy. That targeting could be, Soliman's lawyers and supporters believe, retaliation for suing the government after he sought information about a security flag that appeared during a background check when he applied for a job in Oregon several years ago. The USCIS website says the grant of asylum can be terminated in cases where the grantee no longer meets the definition of a refugee, is convicted of a 'particularly serious crime', is a security threat, or for a number of other reasons. The termination of asylum status is highly uncommon. 'Asylum termination is incredibly rare, but if you challenge the US government, you might put a target on your back,' says Healy. 'This also demonstrates how no one is ever truly safe under these current policies. Any asylum officer may re-interpret historical events and issue this type of ruling.' Emails sent by the Guardian to Ice's media department asking why Soliman's asylum status was revoked and whether the reason for doing so is related to his alleged being on an FBI 'terror watchlist' did not receive a response. 'He is being targeted or profiled, or maybe it's a wrong assessment from the homeland security officer,' says Ahmed Elkady, an Egyptian-born doctor and one of three of Soliman's contacts permitted to visit him in jail. 'We know the system in Egypt. [If he is sent back] you won't know where he will go to or how long he will stay because there is no court hearing, there is nothing.' Soliman has received public support from the Greater Cincinnati Board of Rabbis, and hundreds of people in the Ohio city have been turning out at protests against his detention in recent days. Soliman is being held 18 miles north at the notorious Butler county jail, a facility whose sheriff has openly advocated for cash in return for holding individuals detained by Ice, and which bears a sign on its grounds that says:'illegal aliens here'. On 16 July, Soliman was granted a temporary restraining order that would prevent his potential transfer out of Ohio until at least his bond hearing on 23 July. Ali, who speaks with Soliman every day, says he recently led one of the first Friday prayers for Muslims being held at the jail. 'He's also helped people get kosher food, since there is no access to halal meals,' she says. Among the 1,000-strong worshipers at the Clifton mosque, one of the oldest mosques in Cincinnati that opened in the late 1960s chiefly to serve students from the nearby university, the fear – and not just for their imam – is real. Ali says she has received reports from Muslim residents that Ice agents are knocking on their doors. 'There are some members of our community who say agents identifying themselves as Ice are stopping at people's houses and interrogating them and asking them about Ayman,' she says. 'There is nothing here that people know that they don't already know.'

Public ‘sick of cover-ups' at MoD, says Chinook crash campaigner
Public ‘sick of cover-ups' at MoD, says Chinook crash campaigner

North Wales Chronicle

timean hour ago

  • North Wales Chronicle

Public ‘sick of cover-ups' at MoD, says Chinook crash campaigner

All 29 military and intelligence personnel on board RAF Chinook ZD576 were killed when the aircraft crashed in foggy weather en route from RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to Fort George near Inverness on June 2, 1994. The bereaved families have called for a judge-led inquiry into the incident, which was initially blamed on pilot error before this was overturned in 2011. A petition calling for an inquiry saw a surge in support last week after campaigners took to social media to criticise efforts to cover up the leak of thousands of names of Afghans who had helped UK troops, which they said was another case of the MoD 'covering up its own mess'. Chris Cook, whose pilot brother Rick was killed in the 1994 crash, said: 'This Afghan cover-up shows that the MoD hasn't just lost its moral compass but has managed to avoid all democratic accountability and scrutiny. 'It hid this data leak from the very people who are meant to keep it in line – the Intelligence and Security Committee, which had a legal right to see the intelligence assessments.' He added: 'The MoD has become the Ministry of Deceit. It lies, it obfuscates and it squirrels away its mistakes until it is found out – just as it has with the Chinook crash. 'It took us 16 years to clear my brother's name, and all that time the MoD claimed information didn't exist – until we found it and then they questioned how we got the information. 'The trouble with this whole case over 31 years, and so many other MoD cases – the helicopter cancer cases, the nuclear vets, is that so much information has been suppressed. 'It seems that the Ministry of Deceit is unable to uphold the values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality which they expect our armed forces to serve with. 'It's time for truth and transparency at the MoD and it's time for the Prime Minister to step in and clear up the MoD's many outstanding cases of deception, with a legal duty of candour imposed.' 'This Afghan cover up shows that the Ministry of Defence hasn't just lost its moral compass but has managed to avoid all democratic accountability and scrutiny. Just like the Chinook crash, it has covered up its own mess as usual. The MoD has become the Ministry of Deceit." — Chinook Justice (@ChinookJustice) July 18, 2025 In a social media post, the Chinook Justice group said: '#Coverup appears to be the mantra of the British state… with the MoD at the centre of it. Again.' In another it said the petition had got the 'zoomies' as the number of signatories doubled in the space of eight hours to more than 22,000. Andy Tobias, who was eight when his father Lt Col John Tobias was killed in the crash, said: 'Clearly, we have touched a nerve with the British public who are sick of cover-ups and secrecy at the MoD. 'Like many other families – from Hillsborough to sub-postmasters, the infected blood scandal to nuclear veterans and MoD helicopter cancer victims, and now Afghan families – we should not have to fight tooth and nail for truth, transparency and justice from the Government. 'That's why we are calling for a legal duty of candour. Enough is enough.' Following an appeal by Mr Tobias, former defence secretary Sir Liam Fox has agreed to meet the bereaved families to discuss the matter. The news comes on the back of the former minister's offer to intervene on their behalf with the MoD and 'if necessary' the Prime Minister to push for an inquiry, as reported in the Daily Mail newspaper. The MoD has been approached for comment.

This fiasco didn't start when Britain leaked Afghans' names, but when we invaded their country
This fiasco didn't start when Britain leaked Afghans' names, but when we invaded their country

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

This fiasco didn't start when Britain leaked Afghans' names, but when we invaded their country

What odds on a public inquiry into the Afghan superinjunction? Gold-plated, judge-led, three years of fun and games, that is how British politics normally kicks an embarrassment into the long grass. And what odds on who will get off scot free – Tony Blair? The more we pick away at the stages of this fiasco, the more from the start one blunder seemed to follow inevitably from another. There was no reason for the British invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. If the US wanted revenge on the Kabul regime for harbouring al-Qaida after 9/11, it could have done what Donald Trump did last month to Iran. A savage retaliatory blow against the country's rulers would have made the point. The invocation of article 5 of the Nato treaty to justify an invasion of Afghanistan was ridiculous. America's security was not remotely threatened by terrorism directed from Kabul, any more than was Britain's. Other Nato powers, bullied into showing sympathy, limited themselves to minimal non-fighting roles. Once Kabul had been attacked and the Taliban had fled, caution and common sense indicated swift withdrawal. The US military command wanted no invasion. Blair was insistent in pressing Bush for 'nation-building', against considerable US scepticism. He was desperate for Britain to punch above its weight. In his Chicago speech in 1999, he had advocated the new Blair 'doctrine of international community', that of altruistic intervention. It was basically a call for more wars. Clinton's office described Blair's intervention in Kosovo as the prime minister 'sprinkling too much adrenaline on his cornflakes'. When war duly arrived, Blair was insistent that British submarines fire the first barrage of missiles on Kabul. He told the 2001 Labour conference: 'We will not walk away from Afghanistan, as the outside world has done so many times before … There is only one outcome: our victory not theirs.' There followed a full-scale British occupation that culminated, in 2006, in a reckless, failed attempt to suppress the Taliban in Helmand. One result was that for 20 years, a sizeable chunk of Afghanistan's modest administrative class found themselves employed by western occupying powers, including Britain. As the Taliban filtered back, these people assumed, perhaps foolishly, that the good old British empire would not desert them. When the list of 19,000 collaborators in the British occupation was leaked, the danger was obvious. The Ministry of Defence was alerted that an anonymous member of a Facebook group had said he had the database and was threatening to post it in full. Not knowing if the list had been shared with the Taliban, the government acted to protect those named. The defence secretary at the time, Ben Wallace, understandably wanted to keep the fact a secret just in case. A judge understandably agreed, for a while. But neither decision would stand the test of time – or the mounting embarrassment. The Treasury cost of honouring the list was not millions but billions. The bulk of the blame must lie with the fact of the invasion and subsequent departure. The effort of the House of Commons this week to make the leak issue partisan was pitiful. Neither the cabinet nor parliament tried to stop Blair's original occupation. In 2010, after nine years, it still voted overwhelmingly in favour of Britain's presence continuing. Parliament was equally in favour of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. When in 2021 Boris Johnson finally joined the US in cutting and running, parliament washed its hands of the whole affair. In Afghanistan, 457 British soldiers died. The cost of the war to the UK taxpayer was £30bn. Some 200,000 Afghans also died and 29,700 were accepted for resettlement between 2021 and 2024. These figures are the bill for the outrage over 9/11 and were utterly unnecessary. No other European country joined the US on anything like the same scale as Britain. There has not been a word of inquiry into who should carry any degree of personal responsibility. Britain attempted to withdraw from its empire with dignity over the course of the 20th century. It did not always succeed. Yet, ever since, its rulers have seemed in a state of lingering regret. Like Blair, they have harboured a tarnished yearning for a Britain still playing a role on the world stage, a violent one if need be. Though Britain was never remotely threatened, Blair was almost always at war, in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq. David Cameron was bitten with the same bug, intervening in Libya and trying to do so in Syria. He built two giant aircraft carriers, one of which Boris Johnson could not resist sending to the South China Sea. Why was never explained. If Trump has any virtue it has been in telling Europe that the old global interventionism is over. The US is fed up with being Europe's policeman. The continent should be realistic and look after its own business. But even he could not resist the machismo of bombing Iran. The lesson of the leak is not that emails are never safe. That surely is known. The real lesson is that Britain should never have spent a quarter of a century trying to impose its rule on Afghanistan in the first place. Will it now learn? Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store