Conservative party leader hopeful Robert Jenrick’s recent comments, shared in a now widely circulated clip, suggest that British special forces are opting to kill, rather than capture, terrorists in Afghanistan because “our lawyers tell us” that if these individuals are detained, “the European Court will set them free.”
“Our special forces are killing, rather than capturing terrorists,” he says, “because our lawyers tell us that if they’re caught the European Court will set them free.”
It’s a bold statement, yet one that is not only deeply flawed but also troubling in its implications for the UK’s approach to warfare, the rule of law, and human rights. When we unpack the reasoning behind this claim, it becomes clear how dangerous it truly is, both morally and strategically.
Jenrick’s Rationale: A False Dilemma
At the heart of Jenrick’s defence is the idea that the legal systems—specifically the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)—pose such an insurmountable obstacle to holding terrorists accountable that extrajudicial killings are the only option. This is a gross simplification of the legal landscape and a dangerous justification for the use of lethal force in place of due process.
Jenrick’s claim rests on the assumption that the European Court is soft on terrorists, allowing dangerous individuals to walk free on technicalities. But this assumption misrepresents how the legal process works. The ECHR exists to ensure that human rights are respected, and that does include the rights of detainees—but it also upholds the fundamental principle that justice must be applied fairly and within the law. To argue that the courts are obstructing justice, rather than protecting it, is to fundamentally misunderstand their role in a democratic society.
The Background: SAS Killings in Afghanistan
Jenrick’s comments must be viewed in the context of the ongoing Independent Inquiry into alleged unlawful killings by the SAS in Afghanistan. According to a BBC report, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) admitted in a private 2019 letter that allegations of SAS war crimes, voiced by AOAV two years ago, were “broadly accurate.” These allegations include the deliberate killing of unarmed detainees during night raids and the fabrication of evidence to justify these killings.
The inquiry has revealed a deeply troubling culture within the SAS, where there appears to have been an “unofficial policy” to kill Afghan men of fighting age, regardless of the immediate threat they posed. This is not only a breach of military protocol but a potential violation of international law. Despite these concerns, Royal Military Police investigations into the killings were closed prematurely, without any prosecutions.
What Jenrick seems to ignore in his argument is that these unlawful killings are not a matter of legal loopholes—they are violations of the very rules that are meant to govern the conduct of military forces in conflict zones. His defence, therefore, does not hold up to scrutiny. Far from being the victims of overzealous lawyers, the UK’s special forces are being called to account for acts that appear to contravene international humanitarian law.
Undermining the Rule of Law
Jenrick’s position is not just dangerous because it excuses unlawful behaviour; it is dangerous because it undermines the rule of law. The argument that British forces should kill rather than capture to avoid legal consequences is an affront to the principles of justice and accountability. It suggests that the UK is willing to sidestep international legal frameworks, like the ECHR, in the name of expediency. But this approach not only erodes the UK’s moral standing on the global stage, it also risks turning our military into an unaccountable force, operating outside the bounds of international law.
By implying that the only way to handle terrorism is through extrajudicial killings, Jenrick is advocating for a dangerous departure from the legal frameworks that have long guided military conduct. If we start justifying unlawful killings on the basis of anticipated legal challenges, we enter a slippery slope where any number of human rights violations can be excused.
The Strategic Risks
Beyond the moral and legal implications, Jenrick’s argument poses significant strategic risks. One of the key lessons from conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq is that heavy-handed tactics—especially those that result in civilian casualties or extrajudicial killings—serve to radicalise local populations, making the situation on the ground even more unstable. By endorsing the notion that the UK’s special forces should kill rather than capture, Jenrick is perpetuating a strategy that has historically backfired, both in terms of military objectives and broader geopolitical outcomes.
Moreover, the credibility of British forces is at stake. If the UK becomes known for its disregard for international law, it will not only lose the trust of the international community but also the moral authority that has been central to its military operations. In the long run, this will harm British interests far more than any legal challenge posed by the ECHR.
The inquiry into SAS killings in Afghanistan must be allowed to proceed without political interference or attempts to downplay its findings. Jenrick’s comments do a disservice to the serious allegations at hand, and by framing the issue as one of legal obstruction, he distracts from the real problem: a culture of impunity within the UK’s special forces that must be addressed.
At AOAV, we believe that justice and accountability should be at the heart of any military operation. The rule of law exists to protect not just those who are subject to it, but also those who enforce it.
British forces must be held to the highest standards, not just because it is legally required, but because it is morally right. Anything less would be a betrayal of the values we claim to uphold in the fight against terror.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate