END SHOOT-DOWN POLICY

According to The Washington Post, "Civilian pilots around the world have
reacted with anger to the downing of a plane carrying a missionary family
in Peru, saying the ... policy ... is a blatant violation of international
law."

In this tragic incident, a Peruvian jet, guided by a U.S. plane, fired on
the single-engine Cessna. The Peruvians say they followed all the right
procedures; the Americans say that the Peruvians were trigger-happy.

The pilots point out that when the Soviet Union shot down KAL 007 in 1984,
the United States argued that there was never any justification for firing
on a civilian plane. "Nothing justifies a no-questions-asked destruction of
civilian aircraft," said Phil Boyer, president of the International Council
of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations.

Peter West, a senior vice president at the National Business Aircraft
Association, said that when he heard of the tragedy, "My thoughts rushed
quickly to the most important argument we and others made against this
dangerous approach to drug interdiction: the serious risk to innocent lives."

Put international law aside. Put aside as well, the controversy over who
did or did not follow procedures. Imagine instead that Peruvian vacationers
had been shot down instead of Americans. Would there be such a controversy?
Would there even be a controversy? We think it more probable that both
American and Peruvian drug warriors would shrug and talk about unfortunate
"collateral damage." Those lives would have been expendable in the
all-justifying drug war.

We say, innocent lives are more important than the policy. Let this policy die.