ARE DRUGS DRIVING US CRAZY IN PERU?

SECURE US TECHNOLOGY can't get a break lately. One of our submarines
fillets a fishing trawler in the open ocean, killing Japanese citizens.
The EP-3, the most sensitive weapon in our spy arsenal, gets submarined
by a Chinese pilot and filleted on a resort island.

The Navy's weapon of the future, the rapid takeoff and landing V-22
Osprey aircraft, which seems to have a slight problem with the takeoff
and landing part, killed 23 Marines last year (luckily, a Pentagon
committee just green-lighted going forward with the $40 billion weapon,
though they did recommend that the manufacturers fix the stuff that
keeps making the planes crash).

More recently, one of our government's high-tech surveillance planes,
manned by CIA contractors, identified a drug smuggling Cessna, which was
then shot down by a Peruvian military jet. The technology worked
perfectly, but the drug smugglers were actually American Baptist
missionaries, and the people killed were one of the missionaries and her
7-month-old daughter.

The troubling part of this latest incident extends beyond the senseless,
tragic loss of life - and make no mistake, there is nothing more
senseless and tragic than a bullet hitting an infant, except maybe when
that same bullet killed the infant's mother a millisecond earlier. This
tragedy also raises a question for US officials: Why are we helping Peru
with summary aerial executions?

The knee-jerk response will include a phrase about the ''war on drugs,''
an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of efforts, some effective
and some - well, people can still buy coke, smack, or crack at clubs,
schools, and street corners from sea to shining sea. Hmm, since 20-plus
years of attacking the supply and suppliers hasn't worked, maybe we
should try to do something about the demand. Just a thought.

Meanwhile, our government, specifically the US Congress in 1994, decided
to aid the Peruvians in their attempts to stem the flow of blow by
providing high-tech airborne surveillance to help identify possible drug
runners, who typically fly at low levels in small private aircraft.
Since this program went into existence, the Peruvians have shot down 30
suspected smuggling planes.

Or, in other words, we're helping a country repeatedly shoot down
suspected criminals without the benefit of stuff like evidence,
representation, or a fair trial. The sole criteria for criminal activity
seem to be the kind of vehicle and its general location. Let's just call
it aviational profiling.

Word to the Peruvians: We've had a little experience with this type of
thing in the United States, and it may not be a smart policy. Example: I
know of two drug dealers in my neighborhood. One works for a large
multinational pharmaceutical corporation; the other is a freelancer
dealing in contraband. Both drive late model SUVs. Who's the criminal?
(Consider the high price of prescription drugs before answering.)

Peru says it follows stringent procedures before opening fire. The pilot
and surviving Baptist missionaries say these policies weren't followed.
The CIA contractors on the surveillance plane are saying the Peruvian
pilots were trigger happy, too. This isn't the first time. Reports say
rules were broken in 1994 and 1997.

Which brings us back to the role of the US Congress. Aside from
supporting executions without due process, how aware were our lawmakers
that the Peruvian pilots may have seen ''Top Gun'' a few too many times?

In 1994, soon after the surveillance flights began, Congress suspended
them after violations were reported. But in 1995, Congress passed a law
granting immunity to US personnel if innocent people were killed during
these operations, and the surveillance flights were resumed.

OK, so what part of this doesn't make us all feel dirty? More to the
point, why aren't we stopping this program immediately?