MR BERGER
Well but and it doesn't matter that the evidence came out in cross-examination, that's the purpose of cross-examination, it's to test the evidence and the strong theme from each and every witness was that - you'll recall the debate about whether it was people carrying out military activities, or whether it was people providing logistical support for military activities, or whether it was people planning military activities, but what was clear throughout the evidence of all the applicants was that the targets of the raid were ANC members who were involved in one way or another in military activities and I went so far as to say:  "Does that exclude ANC members who were involved in political activities?" and the answer was yes, it excludes them.
	Now I submit that the reason why that approach was taken was because then you can justify, we know, we've heard from witnesses on both sides, we know that the ANC used Botswana as a base from which to launch attacks, be it one fifth, or whatever, to launch attacks against South Africa.  We know that, it's part of our history and there's no doubt that the Security Forces wanted to neutralise that threat.  Now if that was all there was to it, there were attacks being launched from Botswana and the purpose of the raid was to neutralise those attacks, to destroy the military capacity of the ANC in Botswana, well then we have a quid pro quo.  It's terrible to use that, but then there would have been proportionality within the meaning of the Act, which is what the Act requires.