JUSTIFIED SURVEILLANCE?

U.S. Policy Questioned After Shoot-Down In Peru

Even if it is true, as claimed, that the Americans on a CIA plane tried
to stop an attack last Friday in Peruvian airspace that killed innocent
people, how can one go about justifying a U.S. policy that involves our
country in a surveillance role in Peru's policing of illegal drug
shipments?

The situation as presently related is that Americans aboard the CIA
plane informed Peruvian authorities of a plane that might be carrying
illegal drugs. Officials have told the press that a Peruvian officer on
the American plane sought permission for a Peruvian jet to fire on the
suspicious aircraft after a failure to find a flight plan for the
aircraft or to receive replies to radio inquiries. The Americans on the
CIA plane reportedly objected, but to no avail.

An American missionary and her adopted daughter were killed when the
Peruvian jet opened fire. The dead Americans were from Michigan, and
were affiliated with a Baptist missionary group that reportedly has
worked in Peru since 1939. The pilot of the missionary plane was
slightly injured.

The American policy, President Bush has explained, is nothing more than
to pass on information, but what seems to be the case is that the United
States has put itself in a position of participating in law-enforcement
actions that it cannot control, and with a partner that is not entirely
trustworthy.

Our supposed national self-interest is to stop the influx of illegal
drugs into the United States. Yet, as long as American demand for banned
narcotics remains what it is, it is difficult to imagine that
surveillance flights in Peru will make much difference.

This terrible loss of life that has occurred should prompt the Bush
administration to review a policy that, of course, is not one it
promulgated. While it would be a mistake for the administration to drop
the policy without thorough consideration, the burden of proof should be
on those who see benefits in the status quo that outweigh the costs and
risks.