Latest news with #LighthouseReports
The Independent
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
UK officer who oversaw rejections of Afghan asylum claims could be linked to war crimes inquiry, High Court hears
The UK special forces officer in charge of assessing resettlement applications from Afghan commandos may have been connected to an ongoing inquiry into alleged war crimes committed by British troops, the High Court has heard. Thousands of applications from individuals with credible links to two Afghan elite commando units CF33 and ATF444 were rejected by the Ministry of Defence, despite the soldiers being paid and trained by the British. Some of the Afghan commandos who applied for sanctuary in Britain served alongside the UK special forces units that are at the centre of the war crimes inquiry. The former soldiers were left at the mercy of the Taliban, with some being murdered because of their service with the British. The MoD is undertaking a review of some 2,000 applications of Afghans linked to the units, after The Independent, along with Lighthouse Reports, Sky News and the BBC exposed how they were being denied help. The review comes amid an ongoing inquiry into alleged war crimes committed on UK special forces raids between 2010 and 2013. Members of the UKSF have been accused of killing unarmed Afghans and planting weapons on them. It has emerged that UK special forces had power over the UK sanctuary applications of Afghan allies who could be potential witnesses to the inquiry. MoD caseworkers would refer applications to a UKSF liaison officer, who would make further enquiries about the Afghans' connections to special forces soldiers. A legal challenge is being brought over how the MoD is assessing the applications from these two units, known as The Triples. The High Court heard on Thursday that a UKSF liaison officer who had power over the resettlement applications was also connected with matters being probed by the Afghan war crimes inquiry. In a summary of evidence heard in a closed hearing, the MoD confirmed that 'because of the role(s) he held at the relevant time, the UKSF liaison officer may have had some connection to the matters within the scope of the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan'. It continued: 'He will through the nature of his role(s) in UKSF have liaised with Operation Northmoor '. Operation Northmoor was a Royal Military Police investigation that looked into 11 separate special forces raids in Afghanistan. Though allegations of bias were raised in the court case, the MoD said an internal investigation 'found no evidence of bias or hidden motives on the part of the UKSF liaison officer'. Instead they said that the UKSF officer's 'approach to decision-making was lax and unprofessional'. They found that the officer would make more thorough enquiries in relation to some Afghan applicants and not others. He also told UKSF units that if they didn't reply to his enquiries about certain Afghan applicants he would assume that the unit had no relevant information and would reject the application. The UKSF officer also reached 'decisions far too quickly', the MoD said, and would focus on the Afghan soldiers' seniority rather than their eligibility. Documents submitted to the High Court revealed that the UKSF liaison officer was replaced following a January 2024 meeting between senior civil servants and then-Veterans minister Johnny Mercer who presented his concerns about bias in the process. In February 2024, ministers announced a review into how Triples applications had been handled after identifying decisions were 'inconsistent' and 'not robust'. In documents submitted by the MoD to the High Court, it was revealed that by May 2022 caseworkers assessing Triples applications were referring them to UKSF personnel for input. The court heard that the senior civil servant in charge of Afghan resettlement applications to the MoD, Natalie Moore, was concerned about how decisions were being made as early as October 2023. She commissioned an internal review into the process, which identified failings in the decision making but did not find evidence of bias related to the Afghan war crimes inquiry. In a witness statement, Ms Moore said that she became concerned about the 'changes in decision making approach at a time when an identified individual became UKSF liaison officer'. The liaison officer oversaw decisions during a 'sprint' to clear a backlog of over 5,000 applications in the summer of 2023. During this time there were between 22 and 43 caseworkers and just one UKSF liaison officer to give input on the decisions, the court heard. Mr Justice Dingemans put to the MoD that the process 'was inevitably bound to fail' with just one UKSF officer dealing with so many cases. The court heard that during the summer 'sprint' to speed through applications some 1585 cases were rejected. Ms Moore also said that she had recently been made aware about internal concerns regarding UKSF's handling of cases from as early as October 2022. She told the court that 'from summer 2022 lax procedures were being followed by UKSF that led to large numbers [of Triples cases] being rejected'. The MoD realised that their caseworkers were 'overly reliant' on UKSF personnel, and were 'not consistently exercising their own independent judgement'. The government admitted that this led to UKSF personnel determining resettlement applications and rejecting them. However Ms Moore said she believed incorrect decisions on Triples' cases 'arose from the poor decision-making process' rather than bias of the UKSF. Thomas de la Mare KC, for the claimant, said that the rejections amounted to 'effectively a blanket practice'. The hearing is due to conclude on Friday, with a decision expected in writing at a later date.
The Independent
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Process for allowing Afghan troops to UK ‘a disaster area' that could be likened to ‘a crime scene', court hears
The process for determining whether former members of Afghan special forces who served alongside British troops in Afghanistan can be resettled to the UK was a 'disaster area' so terrible it could be likened to a 'crime scene', the High Court has heard. Thousands of applications for sanctuary from Afghans with credible links to special forces units CF333 and ATF444, known as the Triples, were rejected by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Their pleas for help were rebuffed by the government despite these units being paid and trained by the British and the soldiers fighting alongside UK special forces (UKSF) in Afghanistan. The MoD is undertaking a review of some 2,000 applications of Afghans linked to the units, after The Independent, along with Lighthouse Reports, Sky News and the BBC exposed how they were being denied help. The court heard that the review of some 2,000 applications is only looking at cases that were referred by MoD caseworkers to UK special forces for input. UK special forces had power over the UK sanctuary applications of Afghan allies amid an ongoing inquiry into potential war crimes in Afghanistan. Concerns have been raised by MPs about the potential conflict of interest of allowing UKSF a role in the resettlement process. The inquiry has been investigating alleged war crimes committed on raised by UKSF between 2010 and 2013. Members of the UKSF have been accused of killing unarmed Afghans, planting weapons on them, falsifying reports and then covering up the crimes. The High Court also heard that the MoD rejected the resettlement application of one senior commander from the Triples units, who was in the units at the time of a key incident being examined in the Afghan war inquiry. A former senior member of the Triples, who is now in the UK, is bringing the legal challenge on behalf of commandos still in Afghanistan - challenging how the review has been carried out. The case is an application for judicial review which, if granted, would see the scheme further challenged in the courts. Thomas de la Mare KC, for the claimant, told the court on Wednesday that there had been an effective blanket ban on approvals for these ex-servicemen who fought side-by-side with the British forces. He told the court that decisions on whether to help these Afghans were 'life and death decisions', with Triples members or their families being murdered or tortured because of their support for UK forces. Speaking about the decision-making within the MoD, he said: 'The decision-making process prior to the review is almost a crime scene, it's a disaster area.' He added: 'It's almost as disastrous an area of decision-making as it's possible to conceive.' He argued that information about how the approvals were made should be made public 'to restore public confidence and trust in the decision-making process'. Mr de la Mare continued: 'There is a widespread perception that there is an issue of conflict of interest or bias in this process. Those conflicts of interest were vented very clearly in January 2024, and they were a key part in the decision-making process.' The court also heard that political pressure was put on MoD decision-makers to 'sprint' through resettlement cases. This prompted concerns about the quality of decision-making, which resulted in an internal review where 'a pattern of blanket refusal of Triples claims referred to UKSF became obvious', the court was told. Flaws in the decision-making process included people being 'inappropriately reliant on UKSF personnel', particularly 'during the 'sprints' that took place through the summer of 2023', the court heard. Caseworkers before the review lacked access to relevant records and were insufficiently experienced. The court heard that then-minister for veterans affairs, Johnny Mercer, wrote to Oliver Dowden in January 2024 to raise concerns about how the process was being carried out. He highlighted that the role of UKSF personnel in the decision-making process was 'deeply inappropriate' and represented a 'significant conflict of interest'. Mr de la Mare added that until the Triples review was announced in February 2024, a 'vanishingly small' number of the special forces commandos had been approved for relocation to the UK. He told the court that senior ministers had decided to conduct a review 'on the basis that all credible claims of Triples membership were in scope'. However, Mr de la Mare said this had been narrowed to just re-examine cases where the Afghan applicant's case had been referred to UK special forces. The hearing is due to conclude on Friday, with a decision expected in writing at a later date.
Washington Post
19-02-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
The Post Annouces Immigration and Border Security Team
We're proud to announce the members of The Post's newly formed immigration and border security team in the National department. The team has quickly distinguished itself with scoops, analysis and riveting narratives that explained the numerous changes President Donald Trump has made to the U.S. immigration system. The first weeks of the Trump administration have demonstrated the importance of the team's work, focused on changes in immigration policy and enforcement and their humanitarian, societal, political and economic impacts. This team will aggressively cover the story not only in Washington but also at the border and elsewhere. It will partner with colleagues around the room whose responsibilities intersect with immigration coverage to produce agenda-setting, dynamic and visually engaging journalism in all formats. As previously announced, Jenna Johnson will lead the team. She is joined by Christine Armario, who is on a detail as the team's deputy from her role as a deputy editor on the America team. The reporters are: Jose A. Del Real, Silvia Foster-Frau, Arelis R. Hernandez, Marianne LeVine, David Nakamura and Maria Sacchetti. Christine is a versatile editor with a sharp news sense who is known for diplomatically orchestrating large projects and gracefully elevating narratives. On the America desk, she edited stories on overwhelmed deputies in Eagle Pass, Texas; the far-reaching implications of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis's election police unit; division in Butler County, Pa., after the Trump assassination attempt there; and Jair Bolsonaro's cameo as a Florida man. She spearheaded investigations in collaboration with the visual forensics team, including an examination of the flawed medical response to the Uvalde school shooting. More recently she led a joint investigation with Lighthouse Reports and Mexico's El Universal into migrant drownings in Texas. Before joining The Post as a general assignment editor in 2021, Christine spent more than a decade at the AP, reporting from eight countries in the Americas. Maria, a longtime immigration reporter at The Post, is one of the nation's leading experts in the intricacies of the complex U.S. immigration system and is deeply sourced on the topic, producing multiple scoops in recent weeks. Arelis, who is based in Texas, will continue to document how policy changes in Washington play out on the southern border with Mexico and can quickly shift the trajectory of the lives of migrants fleeing violence, poverty and destruction in their home countries. Arelis was one of the lead reporters in the 'American Icon' series, which won the 2024 Pulitzer Prize and WHCA's Katharine Graham Courage and Accountability award. Silvia, a national investigative reporter, previously covered communities suffering from toxic drinking water. Before that she was also one of the lead reporters on the 'American Icon' series. As the Post's multiculturalism reporter, she reported on demographic changes throughout the country, including a piece that won the NAHJ Elaine Rivera Civil Rights and Social Justice award. She joined The Post in 2021 from the San Antonio Express-News and has also reported for Hearst's Connecticut newspapers. She is president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists - DC Chapter. Marianne joins the team after covering the Trump campaign during the 2024 presidential election, where she wrote about Trump's search for a vice presidential running mate, his efforts to appeal to female voters, his obsession with mentioning Hannibal Lecter and the time he swayed to music for 39 minutes at a town hall with Kristi L. Noem, now the homeland security secretary. Previously, Marianne covered the U.S. Senate for more than four years at Politico. Her first beat was covering labor policy. David joins the team after covering civil rights at the Justice Department, chronicling issues including police reform, rising hate crimes and challenges to voting rights. He previously wrote extensively about immigration while covering the Obama and Trump White Houses — and was once scolded by President Obama in the Rose Garden for yelling out a question about a spike in unaccompanied minors at the southern border. Jose, a narrative features writer for The Post, writes in-depth stories about everyday people as they navigate national trends within their families and communities. In 2016, he covered Trump's first campaign and the rise of the MAGA movement for The Post. Later, as a national correspondent based in Los Angeles for The New York Times, he often wrote about the opioid epidemic, bicultural life in the southwest, and the way public policy fails farmworkers. Jose was recognized with the Livingston Award for National Reporting in 2022. The team started work on Inauguration Day. Please join us in congratulating them.
The Guardian
10-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
US-funded ‘social network' attacking pesticide critics shuts down after Guardian investigation
A US company that was secretly profiling hundreds of food and environmental health advocates in a private web portal has said it has halted the operations in the face of widespread backlash, after its actions were revealed by the Guardian and other reporting partners. The St Louis, Missouri-based company, v-Fluence, said it is shuttering the service, which it called a 'stakeholder wiki', that featured personal details about more than 500 environmental advocates, scientists, politicians and others seen as opponents of pesticides and genetically modified (GM) crops. Among those profiled was Robert F Kennedy Jr, President Trump's controversial pick for secretary of health and human services. The profiles – part of an effort that was financed, in part, by US taxpayer dollars – often provided derogatory information about the industry opponents and included home addresses and phone numbers and details about family members, including children. They were provided to members of an invite-only web portal where v-Fluence also offered a range of other information to its roster of more than 1,000 members. The membership included staffers of US regulatory and policy agencies, executives from the world's largest agrochemical companies and their lobbyists, academics and others. The profiling was one element of a push to downplay pesticide dangers, discredit opponents and undermine international policymaking, according to court records, emails and other documents obtained by the non-profit newsroom Lighthouse Reports. Lighthouse collaborated with the Guardian, the New Lede, Le Monde, Africa Uncensored, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and other international media partners on the September 2024 publication of the investigation. News of the profiling and the private web portal sparked outrage and threats of litigation by some of the people and organizations profiled. London research professor Michael Antoniou, who was profiled on the portal with derogatory information about his personal life and family members, said he fears the actions to take down the profiles may be 'too little too late'. 'Those of us who were profiled still do not know who accessed the information and how it was used,' he said. 'Did it hinder us in our careers or close doors that otherwise may have been open to us? The fact that v-Fluence and the industries it serves resorted to these underhand methods shows that they were unable to win on the level of the science.' v-Fluence says it not only has eliminated the profiling, but also has made 'significant staff cuts' after the public exposure, according to Jay Byrne, the former Monsanto public relations executive who founded and heads the company. Byrne blamed the company's struggles on 'rising costs from continued litigator and activist harassment of our staff, partners, and clients with threats and misrepresentations'. He said the articles published about the company's profiling and private web portal were part of a 'smear campaign' which was based on 'false and misleading misrepresentations' that were 'not supported by any facts or evidence'. Adding to the company's troubles, several corporate backers and industry organizations have cancelled contracts with v-Fluence, according a post in a publication for agriculture professionals. Since its launch in 2001, v-Fluence has worked with the world's largest pesticide makers and provided self-described services that include 'intelligence gathering', 'proprietary data mining' and 'risk communications'. One client of more than 20 years is Syngenta, a Chinese government enterprise-owned company currently being sued by thousands of people in the US and Canada who allege they developed the incurable brain disease Parkinson's from using Syngenta's paraquat weed killers. The first US trial is scheduled to get under way in March. Several others are scheduled over the following months. Byrne and v-Fluence are named as co-defendants in one of the cases against Syngenta. They are accused of helping Syngenta suppress information about risks that the company's paraquat could cause Parkinson's disease, and of helping 'neutralize' its critics. (Syngenta denies there's a proven causal link between paraquat and Parkinson's.) Byrne has denied the allegations in the lawsuit, citing 'numerous incorrect and factually false claims', made by plaintiffs. v-Fluence, which also had the former agrochemical firm Monsanto as a client, secured some funding from the US government as part of a contract with a third party. Public spending records show the US Agency for International Development (USAid) contracted with a separate non-governmental organization that manages a government initiative to promote GM crops in African and Asian countries. That organization, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), then paid v-Fluence a little more than $400,000 from roughly 2013 through 2019 for services that included counteracting critics of 'modern agriculture approaches' in Africa and Asia. The 'private social network portal' set up by v-Fluence was part of the contract, and was supposed to provide, among other things, 'tactical support' for efforts to gain acceptance for the GM crops. A separate contract signed by the USDA in the final months of Donald Trump's first term also provided government employees with access to the portal, including the 'stakeholder backgrounders' on scientists and activists which v-Fluence says it has now removed. The stakeholder backgrounders included profiles on Kennedy, as well as Mehmet Oz, Trump's nominee to oversee Medicare. Kennedy's profile described him as 'an anti-vaccine, anti-GMO and anti-pesticide activist litigator who espouses various health and environmental conspiracy claims'. After the operations were made public in articles by the Guardian and media partners, v-Fluence engaged a law firm to conduct an independent review of whether or not the profiling may have violated the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The regulation is intended to protect an individual's right over collection and use of their personal data. The analysis found that v-Fluence was 'not subject to the GDPR', but recommended v-Fluence handle 'EU personal data consistent with the requirements of the GDPR in the event the Regulation is deemed to apply', the company said in a statement. One of the recommendations was removing the profiles, the company said. v-Fluence will continue to 'offer stakeholder research with updated guidelines to avoid future misinterpretations of our work product', according to the company statement. Wendy Wagner, a law professor at the University of Texas with expertise in the regulation of toxic substances, said there seemed to be little good reason to maintain such a database other than to use it for harassing opponents. 'I'm quite familiar with corporate harassment of scientists who produce unwelcome research, and sometimes this includes dredging up personal information on the scientist to make their work look less credible,' Wagner said. 'But I have not encountered the use of larger databases that track personal details of numerous critics of a corporation (including independent scientists and journalists). It is hard to see the relevance of personal details short of use as harassment.' This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group
