Scores of alleged “insurgents” or suchlike “elements” are taken out/assassinated/eliminated by drones in Pakistan/Iraq/Aghanistan (and all over!) by “executive Presidential order” or by “instruction”. In each and every one, collateral damage (innocent civilians/family/friends) are/were also killed. They had nothing to do with actively waging war. The reason for this? To prevent them from orchestrating killing anyone else and/or “taking them out of the equation”. Nobody is charged/prosecuted/persecuted for this.

Yet, Hatley and his comrades allegedly did EXACTLY that…prevented insurgents/orchestrators of terror/suspected terrorists from possibly killing again or being part of such killing in future.

The question: “What “crime” did they then commit different from those using drones?”. Should they have firstly phoned the President to obtain permission? Shouldn’t they have received the exact same treatment/immunity as the drone operators?

I don’t condone the killing of innocent civilians but it is my view that the prosecution of Hatley and his comrades is a total farce. They should have received the same treatment/immunity than the drone operators and nothing else. If one civilian/soldier’s life was spared, as a result of their actions, they are to be pardoned and decorated.

Those prosecuting them should realize that this is a war where the enemy is not following any rules. To try and meet them, on their ground, one needs to employ the same rules. One cannot fight someone brandishing an AK47 with a powder puff.

Dr. Thinus Coetzee
South Africa