‘Salt in wounds’: Prince Harry’s admission draws anger from Afghans

A woman leafs through the "En la sombra" (In the shadow) Spanish version of the book "Spare" an autbiography by Britain's Prince Harry after buying it in Madrid on January 5, 2023. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 07 January 2023
Follow

‘Salt in wounds’: Prince Harry’s admission draws anger from Afghans

  • Harry says he killed 25 people, ‘chess pieces’ taken off the board
  • 20 years of US-led NATO war killed more than 176,000 Afghans

KABUL: A mixture of anger, pain, and confusion has been felt by Afghans on hearing Prince Harry’s admission of killing more than two dozen people while on military duty in Afghanistan. 

The British royal served in Afghanistan, first as a forward air controller in 2007-08 and in 2012-13 when he was an Apache attack helicopter co-pilot gunner in the US-led NATO campaign against the Taliban. 

In his memoir “Spare,” from which the British media quoted on Friday prior to its global launch next week, the prince said he had killed 25 Taliban fighters, describing them as “chess pieces taken off the board, bad guys eliminated before they kill good guys.” 

The comment provoked outrage from Afghanistan’s current rulers, the Taliban, who seized power when foreign troops withdrew in August 2021. 

“The ones you killed were not chess pieces, they were humans; they had families who were waiting for their return,” prominent Taliban member Anas Haqqani said on Twitter. 

Suhail Shaheen, Taliban government spokesperson and permanent representative-designate to the UN, issued a statement accusing Prince Harry of being on the side of invaders and of committing crimes against humanity. 

Prince Harry’s words also reopened the wounds of those who lost family members during 20 years of war that killed more than 176,000 Afghans. 

“Hearing such news is like putting salt in our wounds. It’s not good, there is no benefit in doing so,” said Shaheen Fidaee, a resident of Kabul province, whose grandmother and uncle were killed during raids by foreign troops. 

“We suffered a lot of victims and hardship in the last two decades.” 

Akmal Khan, a social activist, saw Prince Harry’s admission of killing as just a “small example” of crimes by foreign troops in Afghanistan. 

“We can say hundreds of other similar incidents were committed by them across Afghanistan in the past two decades,” he told Arab News. 

Khan added the remarks in the royal’s memoir were a “huge insult to the entire Afghan nation.” 

Noor Mohammad, a street vendor in Kabul city, said: “He himself (Prince Harry) claimed he killed our countrymen as chess pieces. 

“It’s so painful for us to be hearing such news.” 

For Wahidullah, a shop owner in the Afghan capital, Prince Harry had “insulted all humans and the Afghan nation.” 

Wahidullah, along with Khan and Mohammad, told Arab News that the royal should face prosecution from the international authorities. 

But some believe he was taking part in a military mission and should not be judged until all the circumstances are clear. 

“The statement given by the UK’s Prince Harry is about incidents 10 years ago and during that period of war we had thousands of casualties in Afghanistan,” said Arzo Joya, who worked at an NGO before the Taliban banned women from such work in December. 

She was surprised, however, that Prince Harry remembered the number of those he had killed. 

“We should leave this issue for the future,” she said, “until we get to know how he had committed this.”


Court ruling jeopardizes freedom for pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil

Updated 15 January 2026
Follow

Court ruling jeopardizes freedom for pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil

  • The panel ruled a federal judge in New Jersey didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter at this time
  • The law bars Khalil “from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition,” the panel added

WASHINGTON: A federal appeals panel on Thursday reversed a lower court decision that released former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil from an immigration jail, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting the Palestinian activist.
The three-judge panel of the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t decide the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort to throw Khalil out of the US over his campus activism and criticism of Israel is unconstitutional.
But in its 2-1 decision, the panel ruled a federal judge in New Jersey didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter at this time. Federal law requires the case to fully move through the immigration courts first, before Khalil can challenge the decision, they wrote.
“That scheme ensures that petitioners get just one bite at the apple — not zero or two,” the panel wrote. “But it also means that some petitioners, like Khalil, will have to wait to seek relief for allegedly unlawful government conduct.”
The law bars Khalil “from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition,” the panel added.
Ruling won’t result in immediate detention
It was not clear whether the government would seek to detain Khalil, a legal permanent resident, again while his legal challenges continue.
Thursday’s decision marked a major win for the Trump administration’s sweeping campaign to detain and deport noncitizens who joined protests against Israel.
In a statement distributed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Khalil said the appeals ruling was “deeply disappointing, but it does not break our resolve.”
He added: “The door may have been opened for potential re-detainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability. I will continue to fight, through every legal avenue and with every ounce of determination, until my rights, and the rights of others like me, are fully protected.”
Baher Azmy, one of Khalil’s lawyers, said the ruling was “contrary to rulings of other federal courts.” He noted the panel’s finding concerned a “hypertechnical jurisdictional matter,” rather than the legality of the Trump administration’s policy.
“Our legal options are by no means concluded, and we will fight with every available avenue,” he added, saying Khalil would remain free pending the full resolution of all appeals, which could take months or longer.
The ACLU said the Trump administration cannot lawfully re-detain Khalil until the order takes formal effect, which won’t happen while he can still immediately appeal.
Khalil has multiple options to appeal
Khalil’s lawyers can request the active judges on the 3rd Circuit hear an appeal, or they can go to the US Supreme Court.
An outspoken leader of the pro-Palestinian movement at Columbia, Khalil was arrested on March 8, 2025. He then spent three months detained in a Louisiana immigration jail, missing the birth of his firstborn.
Federal officials have accused Khalil of leading activities “aligned to Hamas,” though they have not presented evidence to support the claim and have not accused him of criminal conduct. They have also accused Khalil, 30, of failing to disclose information on his green card application.
The government has justified the arrest under a seldom-used statute that allows for the expulsion of noncitizens whose beliefs are deemed to pose a threat to US foreign policy interests.
In June, a federal judge in New Jersey ruled that justification would likely be declared unconstitutional and ordered Khalil released.
President Donald Trump’s administration appealed that ruling, arguing the deportation decision should fall to an immigration judge, rather than a federal court.
Khalil has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and ridiculous,” framing his arrest and detention as a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”
Dissenting judge says Khalil has right to fight detention

Judge Arianna Freeman dissented Thursday, writing that her colleagues were holding Khalil to the wrong legal standard. Khalil, she wrote, is raising “now-or-never claims” that can be handled at the district court level. He does not have a final order of removal, which would permit a challenge in an appellate court, she wrote.
Both judges who ruled against Khalil, Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas, were Republican appointees. President George W. Bush appointed Hardiman to the 3rd Circuit, while Trump appointed Bibas. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, appointed Freeman.
The majority opinion noted Freeman worried the ruling would leave Khalil with no remedy for unconstitutional immigration detention, even if he later can appeal.
“But our legal system routinely forces petitioners — even those with meritorious claims — to wait to raise their arguments, the judges wrote. “To be sure, the immigration judge’s order of removal is not yet final; the Board has not affirmed her ruling and has held the parties’ briefing deadlines in abeyance pending this opinion. But if the Board ultimately affirms, Khalil can get meaningful review.”
The decision comes as an appeals board in the immigration court system weighs a previous order that found Khalil could be deported. His attorneys have argued that the federal order should take precedence.
That judge has suggested Khalil could be deported to Algeria, where he maintains citizenship through a distant relative, or Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp to a Palestinian family.
His attorneys have said he faces mortal danger if forced to return to either country.