TRIGGER-HAPPY? TIGHTEN CONTROLS ON DRUG INTERDICTION FLIGHTS

A full investigation must determine why a Peruvian air force pilot shot
down a small plane suspected of drug-running but that in fact was
carrying a family of American Baptist missionaries. Two passengers -- a
woman and her infant daughter -- were killed. Whatever fault may lie
with the pilot, the underlying responsibility lies with the governments
of Peru and the United States, whose policy is to shoot down planes
based on suspicion rather than hard evidence.

Preliminary information suggests that the Peruvian pilot did not follow
the full range of verification and warning procedures required before
resorting to the use of deadly force. The pilot and a Peruvian officer
aboard a nearby U.S. surveillance plane ignored warnings by Americans on
the same plane not to shoot down the small private plane after it failed
to respond to signals ordering it to land. In any event, the Bush
administration should refuse to resume joint drug interdiction flights,
now suspended, until Peruvian authorities agree to rigorously enforce
the rules of engagement.

But beyond the question of following the rules, the shoot-down policy
itself is objectionable. A shoot-to-kill policy that results in the
seizure of a small portion of the illicit narcotics bound for the United
States and other foreign markets is a crude mechanism.

Drug interdiction flights in the Andean region began more than 20 years
ago but were suspended by Washington in 1983 after a Soviet warplane
shot down, with heavy loss of life, a Korean airliner mistakenly
believed to be a spy plane. That incident provoked U.S. concerns that
the flight interdiction program in the Andes might cause innocent
civilians to be caught in the crossfire of the antidrug war. Since
interdiction flights were resumed in 1994, some 30 private planes -- all
reportedly engaged in drug trafficking -- have been shot down or forced
down by Peruvian air force planes using tracking information from U.S.
surveillance planes that operate under contract with the Central
Intelligence Agency.

While the Bush administration has criticized the Peruvian air force for
its pilot's alleged hasty action, it continues to defend the shoot-down
policy. But on Capitol Hill, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman
Richard Shelby has questioned whether the war against drugs justifies
such risky tactics. Well he might. It's time to reassess a policy whose
benefits do not justify needlessly endangering innocent life.