PERUVIAN TRAGEDY

U.S. Role In Missionary's Death Is Troubling

Some time may pass before the truth is extracted from the charges and
denials resulting from the heartbreaking deaths of a U.S. missionary and
her infant daughter in the skies over the Peruvian jungle on Friday.

Veronica Bowers, 35, and 7-month-old Charity were killed when a Peruvian
jet fighter fired on the propeller-driven Cessna carrying the missionary
family. The jet pilot apparently believed he was shooting down a small
plane loaded with illegal drugs and drug-smugglers. The family, including
Bowers' husband and 6-year-old son, were simply flying to Iquitos, Peru,
the last leg of a trip to obtain a permanent residency permit for the baby.

Did the pilot of the Cessna file a flight plan, which would have helped
Peruvian authorities determine the legitimacy of the flight? Did the pilot
of the Peruvian jet fighter make required efforts to contact the Cessna's
pilot before he opened fire?

The answers to those questions will settle who should bear the blame for
the incident and the loss of life. But fixing that responsibility is just
the beginning. The tragedy raises a larger question about U.S. involvement
in interdiction efforts in the drug-producing regions of Colombia, Brazil
and Peru.

A CIA-chartered surveillance plane had alerted the Peruvian military to the
Cessna's flight, precipitating the interception. In an attempt to downplay
the culpability of the United States, Washington officials have said the
CIA's role in interdicting drug-courier flights is purely advisory. As
another mitigating circumstance, U.S. officials have said the CIA crew
objected to the Peruvian decision to fire on the Cessna because Peruvian
officials had not exhausted efforts to identify the craft.

The drug-interdiction agreement between the United States and Peru says
that U.S.- supplied surveillance information can be used as the basis for
an attack on an aircraft only if the suspect aircraft has not filed a
flight plan. The agreement also specifies that an attack can be carried out
only after interceptors have tried to contact the suspect pilot on the
radio and with visual signals, and then only after firing warning shots.

Survivors of the attack say the Peruvian jet fighter made no attempt to
contact the Cessna. Yet to be determined is whether the jet pilot also
strafed the survivors as they clung to the burning wreckage after the plane
crashed into a river.

Wisely, the United States has suspended such surveillance flights.

In recent years, the Peruvian air force has shot down 25 to 30 suspected
drug-smuggling aircraft. In light of this latest incident, one can't help
but wonder whether this is the first time innocent lives have been lost.

Former U.S. anti-drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey says these shoot-downs have
virtually eliminated airborne drug-trafficking in Peru. But even if those
planes were ferrying illegal drugs, Friday's tragedy demonstrates that
firing on them can be a form of summary execution for the pilot or
passengers, who die without a trial or a chance for appeal. This may be
legal in Peru, but it violates fundamental principles of U.S. justice.

There is no doubt that the battle against illicit drugs is important, but
U.S. justice specifically rejects the idea that crime-fighting expedience
trumps the rights of suspects.

U.S. law recognizes that human justice is imperfect and, therefore, errs on
the side of caution to minimize the risk of harming the innocent. All
suspects, no matter how heinous their crimes, have a right to a fair trial
and appeal of a conviction. U.S. principles also restrict the use of deadly
force to cases in which a suspect poses an imminent danger to others.

What happened in Peru on Friday shows the wisdom and superiority of U.S.
standards of justice. The incident also shows the kind of tragedy and shame
that can result when representatives of the United States partner with
foreign governments that take shortcuts with those principles.