STEPHEN GLOVER: How can a judge (whose closest brush with danger may have been ... trends now
We do things oddly in Britain. There has never been an official inquiry into the war in Afghanistan in which 457 British service personnel were killed. A war that cost tens of billions of pounds.
Our soldiers died in vain, and the money was wasted, since the Taliban are back in power in Afghanistan. The other day their supreme leader announced that women convicted of adultery would be stoned to death in public.
But whereas the calamitous errors of successive British administrations have escaped investigation, this Government has set up an inquiry into allegations that members of three SAS units were responsible for the summary executions of some 80 Afghans between 2010 and 2013.
If it transpires that special forces did kill Afghans in cold blood, they must be held to account. But isn't it equally desirable that politicians who embroiled us in a futile war for reasons that seemed confused should also answer for their monumental mistakes?
Not in Britain! As so often, it is servicemen, not ministers, who find themselves in the dock. The politicians who sent those soldiers to a hellhole — often poorly defended in lightly-armoured Land Rovers that offered scant protection from roadside bombs — aren't under investigation.
Except there is one minister who is a hero. And yet this person, Johnny Mercer, is being threatened by the chairman of the Afghan Unlawful Killings inquiry, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave, with imprisonment or a hefty fine.
Johnny Mercer is being threatened by the chairman of the Afghan Unlawful Killings inquiry, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave, (pictured) with imprisonment or a hefty fine
Johnny Mercer (pictured in April last year) wasn't one of those politicians who sent young men off to die or be wounded. He went three times to Afghanistan as a soldier, finishing as a Captain. We don't have to share his politics to agree that he was brave
I doubt that such a threat has been made by a judge to a senior minister (as minister for veterans' affairs, Mr Mercer sits in the Cabinet) in British history. It is an egregious example of the alarming development of judicial overreach.
Mr Mercer wasn't one of those politicians who sent young men off to die or be wounded. He went three times to Afghanistan as a soldier, finishing as a Captain. We don't have to share his politics to agree that he was brave.
He's in trouble with Lord Justice Haddon-Cave because he has so far declined to reveal the names of whistleblowers. There is no suggestion that these people were involved in unlawful killings. It seems they have information about them, though the veterans' minister suggested to the inquiry last month that 'you are already speaking to people who have far greater knowledge of what was going on'.
Mr Mercer was passed confidential information as an MP and he gave his word to his informants that he wouldn't disclose their identity. One may reasonably speculate that they may have served, or still serve, in the Army. Mr Mercer plainly regards it as a matter of honour that he should stand by his assurances to them. This is entirely admirable.
When the veterans' minister appeared at the inquiry, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave (whose closest brush with danger may have been on the croquet lawn) didn't address him with great respect. He declared that Mr Mercer's refusal to divulge names was 'unacceptable'. He told him that he 'needed to decide which side you are really on'.
On the side of honour and decency, I'd say. Having been issued with an ultimatum by the judge that he must disclose the names of the whistleblowers by April 5 or risk a spell in prison or a fine, he is now being urged by No 10 to come clean. His political career is at stake.
I hope he doesn't buckle. He is
