TRIGGER-HAPPY?

Drug Interdiction Flights Need Tighter Controls.

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 very 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.