MR COETZEE
Yes, Mr Commissioner, that's what I'm getting at.  For the foot soldier or the person as Mr Barnard was at that stage, an operative or an agent who was sent out to kill, for him there was no position to assess the situation, he had to go out and the words come to mind, even from my own military service, when we were so often told when we questioned is:  "Yours is not to question why, yours is just to do and die", that is exactly what it was.  I mean that is what he had to do and that was his order, there was a line of command which he could not question and he could not assess the suitability of a target.
	The second aspect here is for personal gain.  Now it can never be the intention of the Act and I don't think that was professed by any person to include ordinary remuneration that a person would obtain in his line of work, if that can be so construed, but then one must, one cannot criticise if there was a package deal.  If it was a good package, if it was proper remuneration, if it was a good salary that he would obtain, certainly he cannot now be criticised therefore because obviously that depends on the resources.  The Government had money, they did pay the people, they knew they had to use the people to do dirty work, so they remunerated them on a proper basis, but to say that he did what he did for the money and that for the money alone, would not be fair because with great respect, Mr Barnard has testified as to his association with the political views of the Government and he has also said that that was also his personal belief, that it was a justifiable action in terms of the current struggle that was at that stage in the country.  So with great respect, to say that it was done for personal gain would not be correct.  So he got bonuses, so he got paid, this moral dilemma is really not the question of this tribunal to say whether or not it's morally wrong or right to accept payment for work for your country.  That is great and excellent patriotism is not one of the criteria the Honourable Commission has to look at.  
	Now my respectful submission that that specific sub-section is in the Act to refer more particularly to a person who acts as a mercenary, who has absolutely, who has no compassion for the views or the moral views of the instructor, it doesn't matter on which one of the parties on the line give him instruction to go and kill.  "Sir, I give you R100 000, go and kill this person".  He comes to this person to kill him, he says:  "No, but I'll give you R200 000, go and kill your instructor".  That is, with great respect, what this sub-section refers to, is to the blatant - to exclude blatant mercenaries from now coming under the banner of the indemnity that this Act will give them and this is basically what I want to ....
END OF SIDE A - TAPE 4A
START OF SIDE B - TAPE 4