Thousands of Afghans Secretly Moved To Britain After Data Leak (reuters.com) 69
The UK secretly relocated thousands of Afghans to the UK after their personal details were disclosed in one of the country's worst ever data breaches, putting them at risk of Taliban retaliation. The operation cost around $2.7 billion and remained under a court-imposed superinjunction until recently lifted. Reuters reports: The leak by the Ministry of Defence in early 2022, which led to data being published on Facebook the following year, and the secret relocation program, were subject to a so-called superinjunction preventing the media reporting what happened, which was lifted on Tuesday by a court. British defence minister John Healey apologised for the leak, which included details about members of parliament and senior military officers who supported applications to help Afghan soldiers who worked with the British military and their families relocate to the UK. "This serious data incident should never have happened," Healey told lawmakers in the House of Commons. It may have occurred three years ago under the previous government, but to all whose data was compromised I offer a sincere apology."
The incident ranks among the worst security breaches in modern British history because of the cost and risk posed to the lives of thousands of Afghans, some of whom fought alongside British forces until their chaotic withdrawal in 2021. Healey said about 4,500 Afghans and their family members have been relocated or were on their way to Britain under the previously secret scheme. But he added that no-one else from Afghanistan would be offered asylum because of the data leak, citing a government review which found little evidence of intent from the Taliban to seek retribution against former officials.
The incident ranks among the worst security breaches in modern British history because of the cost and risk posed to the lives of thousands of Afghans, some of whom fought alongside British forces until their chaotic withdrawal in 2021. Healey said about 4,500 Afghans and their family members have been relocated or were on their way to Britain under the previously secret scheme. But he added that no-one else from Afghanistan would be offered asylum because of the data leak, citing a government review which found little evidence of intent from the Taliban to seek retribution against former officials.
Rut roh (Score:1, Insightful)
The Racist Orange across the pond is not going to like this one bit. No siree.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Not everything should be transactional. There once was a concept of taking responsibility for mistakes.
Re:good value for money (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't a price tag. This is the cost of running a covert operation to exfiltrate thousand of people in government aircrafts. But it does not mean this huge value was paid to someone in particular. Mostly it's accounting for the cost of their army to fly their own aircraft. Maybe they account for the salary of the soldiers who took part. But those soldiers would have been paid anyway. Maybe they account for the depreciation of the aircraft. But if the aircraft was not really damaged then it's not really a cost.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a price tag. This is the cost of running a covert operation to exfiltrate thousand of people in government aircrafts. But it does not mean this huge value was paid to someone in particular. Mostly it's accounting for the cost of their army to fly their own aircraft. Maybe they account for the salary of the soldiers who took part. But those soldiers would have been paid anyway. Maybe they account for the depreciation of the aircraft. But if the aircraft was not really damaged then it's not really a cost.
This operation would also not have cost anything close to this much if Trump and Biden hadn't messed up the Afghanistan withdrawal so spectacularly. That being said, respect to the British who, for all the incompetence surrounding this operation, are at least finally exfiltrating these people instead of having ICE hunt them down and returning them to the Taliban for execution like Trump is doing. I expect a large portion of the cost is bribing Taliban officials to not murder these people after the Tories re
Re: (Score:3)
Humm, Trump negotiated with the Taliban the withdrawal, and set the date. Of course Biden could have rescinded that agreement, so he is not without fault, but he was not the one that created the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden tossed the agreement, and any requirements therein, aside within weeks of getting into office. Notably, the May 2021 Taliban offensive would have been a fatal breach of said plans. Then when he did withdraw, Biden did so abruptly without destroying any equipment that could not be taken out. He also gave up Bagram AFB, which under the original agreement would have remained in US hands. Had the US kept Bagram, it would have made extracting the Afghanis an order of magnitude easier.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think Starmer was in power in 2022
Stop ruining his deeply held beliefs with ... 'theoretical facts'.
Re: (Score:1)
And he certainly can't be held responsible for Brexit, which is why Britain is in the state it's in now. It's fascinating to watch how the Tories, and their fellow travellers across the pond, hold a government that is only been in power for a year responsible for their own actions.
Re:good value for money (Score:4, Informative)
OK Mr Starmer. Laugh it off, pay $600k per Afghan (using others' money of course) and live your best life until karma catches up. Meanwhile Brits are suffering the most massive decline in living standards [bbc.com] in decades, unable to afford food or heating in winter.
Well, I know it sucks but you can't just argue that people who helped UK forces fight terrorists should be left behind to be murdered by the Taliban as a cost saving measure. The only reason this is necessary is because the Tories made these people's names public back in 2022, that and Trump/Biden comprehensively messing up the Afghanistan withdrawal but it was mostly the former. This operation would cost a fraction of what it does today if the Tories hadn't published that list of names. I don't particularly like Starmer but in this particular case he really is doing nothing other than cleaning up a classic garden variety Tory mess here and Tory/Reform-UK muppets like you taking the piss out of him for it really is the pot calling the kettle black.
Re:good value for money (Score:4, Informative)
I'd invite you to RTFA.
(Emphasis mine)
The leak happened in 2022 under Boris Johnson. The superinjunction and transfer scheme were launched in 2023 when Rishi Sunak was PM. Starmer has been PM for about a year, and his government started the review which lifted the injunction. If anyone is making money ff those flights it isn't Starmer.
Re: good value for money (Score:5, Insightful)
The government response to a leaked document was to spend $7BN to import 45K Afghan citizens to UK and pass a law that made it a CRIME to report or even discuss the existence of the list, let alone mention who was on the list.
That is staggeringly bad, plain and simple...
Re: (Score:2)
I won't comment on the financial part of this, but about the law, IMHO the most free country in the world has a similar law, and has used it, more than once.
Re: (Score:2)
the most free country in the world has a similar law
What? Denmark?
Re: (Score:2)
...and pass a law that made it a CRIME to report or even discuss the existence of the list...
Well, to be technically accurate the government didn't actually "pass a law". Doing that in secret would have been extremely difficult but not needed as the relevant legislation already existed. It was simply necessary to persuade a judge to sign the relevant documents. Super-injunctions have been used before, but not for issues of this nature.
More interesting is whether the foreign press - who would not be subject to UK law - managed to report about this. I certainly didn't see it mentioned in Slash
Re: good value for money (Score:4, Insightful)
There were laws in place to help Afghans who helped the British during the war there come to the UK anyway. Many of those on the list had the right, but the processing was very slow and it was difficult to get out of the country.
Then the data breech happened and their lives were at risk because they collaborated. It was the right thing to do to help them get away. The injunction was to limit the damage of the breech, not to cover up what was being done about it. It was always going to be lifted eventually, as soon as a court decided that the danger was passed.
It's a rare example of the UK trying to do the right thing.
Re: (Score:3)
> It was the right thing to do to help them get away.
Absolutely.
> The injunction was to limit the damage of the breech
Probably. It also had the convenient side-effect of removing those people from our immigration stats. Quite helpful if you're worried about the Reform racists, foaming-at-the-mount Brexiteers and the like.
I'm no fan of the Labour party, but on this point (as with a few others actually), they're right on the money. They really are trying to do the right thing. Something sorely missing f
Re: (Score:3)
Responsibility? (Score:3)
There once was a concept of taking responsibility for mistakes.
Right, so exactly which government ministers and civil servants responsible for the leak took responsibility and resigned? Staying in office until voted out while having the taxpayers pay to fund the clean up is not, in any way, shape or form taking responsibility.
Re: Responsibility? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Labour are not to blame for this and were left cleaning up the mess but nobody has taken responsibility for it at all as far as I can see.
Re: (Score:2)
I know but did you see any Tory ministers resign because of it in the last government? Did any civil servants responsible for it - who may well be still in Whitehall - step down or get fired?
Labour are not to blame for this and were left cleaning up the mess but nobody has taken responsibility for it at all as far as I can see.
I was just setting the context, not passing comment. Resignations would have been appropriate, though, but I don't recall any. I'd have had a hard time myself staying on post if I'd put lives on the line like that expect if I was needed to fix the mess. Then I'd feel compelled to resign. It would be the only honourable thing to do.
Re: good value for money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they were "top-flight" they would've been able to stop the taliban.
wat
Re: good value for money (Score:3)
Between Biden's pullout and this (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Between Biden's pullout and this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you carefully read my post, I didn't blame Biden for the circumstances as he listened to his advisors during the withdrawal. But it did happen during this presidency and it did throw the lives of many people in limbo. I voted Biden into office, and I would have voted him in again if he didn't leave the race. Because of the breaking social fabric of the country, it was assumed I meant that as the point of my conversation.
All people (and presidents) make mistakes. It's important to understand that. Cl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why you bring up Biden into the discussion? I clearly emphasized that America negotiated with terrorists, and that was Trump. Perhaps you didn't know this back when it happened? It was all over the world's news. [bbc.com] I assumed you'd know about that, since it's such an important thing to know about one's country.
You're right that there's a lot of reactionary hate in America today. It's quite plain to see. To ask for it to be put back into the bottle is futile and unreasonable. The world doesn't op
Re: (Score:1)
The Wikipedia article itself says “if the Taliban kept its commitments”! Again:
1 - The “deal” had clear cutouts (even per your reference!).
2 - A fragile peace was established under Trump (very few troop deaths). Thus you’re VERY misleading “talking to terrorists”.
4 - Biden campaign promised withdrawal (many public statements!).
5 - Military clearly advised against a complete drawdown (sworn congressional testimony).
6 - Biden forced a pullout regardless of 5. (And, gi
Re: (Score:2)
There's no clauses when dealing with terrorists, and the past cannot be changed. The present, however, is effectively back to where things were, before 9/11.
There's a country called Afghanistan where religious fundamentalists do whatever they want, including harbouring individuals who want to see explosions in the USA. These individuals, like Bin Laden before them, are no doubt developing the next spectacular attack in secret. It will likely succeed, whenever that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could almost say that Trump is a traitor to the West, when he secretly met with and sold off that country to the Taliban terrorists.
Not just to the west. He is a traitor to his country, his various wives and the entire human race.
Was this breach accidental? (Score:1, Informative)
Certain groups are trying to get as many Muslims into the UK as possible. France too [hotair.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Certain groups are trying to get as many Muslims into the UK as possible.
Actually, they are trying to get needy human beings out of the hellholes our ancestors made for them. Nobody GAFF about their religion if they are genuinely needy. Unlike some people who would disallow them for the "crime" of having brown skin.
Re: Was this breach accidental? (Score:2)
+1, insightful
Of course, here it's different. (Score:3)
Meanwhile in the US, the Trump administration is trying to deport refugees back to Afghanistan, vaguely claiming there's an "improved security situation":
https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom... [uscis.gov]
A court has put that on hold at the moment:
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
The most ridiculous claim from Noem, in the link above:
Additionally, the termination furthers the national interest as DHS records indicate that there are recipients who have been under investigation for fraud and threatening our public safety and national security.
Some people may have committed fraud, therefore everyone is guilty by association. Fucking insane.
Re: (Score:3)
A real leader (Score:1)
"It may have occurred three years ago under the previous government, but to all whose data was compromised I offer a sincere apology."
This feels so weird after our own government's leader can't stop saying, "IT WAS BIDEN'S FAULT IT RAINED ON TUESDAY!"
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot comment on the content of your post because I simply don't know the history of India,
and your comment does remind me of a book by Steven Pinker called The Better Angels of Our Nature where he details, in gruesome descriptions, the fact that humanity's past has been filled with barbarities.
We have gradually on everage become more peaceful and more empathetic through our evolution.
Humanity's history is full of horrors, and these happened pretty much everywhere, as far as I understand it.
What's extrem
Re: (Score:2)
Accidentally replied to a sub post!
Re: Colonialist looting invasionist Britain is the (Score:2)
Thank you for your thoughtful post.
Re: Colonialist looting invasionist Britain is the (Score:3)
On you as well, pox + worse.
You Islamic terrorist sympathizer (Bruce* I think).
Doing the right thing (Score:3, Informative)
The UK did the right thing bringing those people to safety. In the Netherlands, meanwhile, right-wing parties keep blocking attempts [www.nd.nl] to take care of a group of Afghans who worked with the Dutch military during NATO operations in the country.
You dang conspiracy theorists! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh no temporary operational secrecy while people's lives are at stake, lifted once the operation is complete. Will the horrors never end???
I swear this story has some of the dumbest takes on the entire internet today.