DON'T SHOOT FIRST

Drug Interdiction Should Avoid Deadly Force

An American Baptist missionary and her infant daughter were killed 2 1/2
years ago when a Peruvian air force pilot shot down a small plane -- even
after U.S. intelligence monitors expressed doubts that the craft might not
be engaged in drug-running, as first suspected. That led to a suspension of
such flights, in Peru and in Colombia, and an admonition by a Senate
committee that they not resume until strict safeguards were in place to
avoid a tragic recurrence, and even then that the shoot-down policy be
reconsidered. That's still good advice. But now Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld says the Bush administration supports a Colombian plan to resume
drug interdiction flights employing deadly force, and the New York Times
quotes officials as saying a resumption is also likely in Peru.

Congress must demand a thorough briefing on exactly what's planned. That's
especially important in light of an apparent shift of virtually all
responsibility for interdiction to Colombia, thus effectively immunizing
the U.S. government against lawsuits in the case of any future harm to U.S.
citizens. The enduring question remains: Why is it necessary to shoot down
a plane based on assumptions that any plane fitting the profile of
drug-runners must be guilty? Forcing a plane to land, which in some cases
is done, is preferable when innocent lives may be at stake and there's no
imminent danger to anyone. The anti-drug war can be fought without
resorting to shoot-first, ask-questions-afterward tactics.

A recent United Nations report says that during a period roughly coinciding
with the suspension of drug interdiction flights, plantings of coca -- the
raw material for cocaine -- in Colombia have fallen by 30 percent while
seizures of processed cocaine have increased by a comparable figure. That's
encouraging, and reinforces the principle that taking deadly action on the
basis of profiling and suspicions is not justified.