|
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
| Debate Raged Over Drug Flight Surveillance in 94 |
|
Posted by FoM on April 24, 2001 at 19:23:06 PT By George Gedda, The Associated Press Source: Associated Press 
The Clinton administration was deeply divided over whether to help countries track suspected drug flights, with supporters arguing the policy would save American lives and others contending that shooting down a misidentified plane would be a serious U.S. embarrassment, declassified documents show. The concerns of Clinton-era Defense and State Department opponents of the policy have been partially borne out. Last Friday, a Peruvian military plane, alerted by a CIA surveillance flight, shot down an American missionary plane, killing two U.S. citizens. The downing of the missionary plane prompted a temporary suspension of the surveillance program. Insights into the 1994 debate over the issue were disclosed Tuesday with the release of documents by the National Security Archive, a George Washington University affiliate that specializes in declassifying foreign policy documentation. On May 1, 1994, the Pentagon stopped sharing surveillance information with Peru and Colombia on grounds that use of force against civil aircraft was a violation of international law. For the United States to have a support role in such activity would make it a party to the violation, the Pentagon believed. The documents show that Defense's stand was applauded by the State Department's legal affairs and economics bureaus but opposed by the Latin America and narcotics bureaus. The contrasting views were outlined in a May 10, 1994, memo to Secretary of State Warren Christopher from the heads of the four bureaus. "More successful interdiction means that lives are being saved, and they are the lives of Americans," the memo said, summarizing the views of the of the Latin America and narcotics bureaus. They praised the air forces of Peru and Colombia for using force sparingly and favoring measures to induce forced landings. Peru's "more aggressive policies" forced drug traffickers to abandon preferred air routes for less desirable ones, the two bureaus argued, according to the summary. But their opponents in the legal affairs and economics bureaus contended that the surveillance policy was inconsistent with the "bright line rule" the United States adopted against the use of weapons against civilian aircraft. They also cited the likelihood that mistakes could occur, pointing to the accidental destruction in 1988 of an Iran Air commercial flight by U.S. forces and a "friendly fire" episode during the 1991 Gulf War that claimed the lives of many U.S. servicemen. A mistake leading to "the death of innocent persons would likely be a serious diplomatic embarrassment for the United States, subject the U.S. government to intense criticism before the International Civil Aviation Organization and undermine our efforts in the Iran Air proceeding at the World Court," the document said. Advocates of reinstating the surveillance policy won out, and cooperation with Peru and Colombia resumed in December 1994. Congress addressed liability concerns by granting U.S. personnel immunity. And the United States worked out procedures with the two Andean countries to prevent errant shootings. Before a plane could be shot down, the Peruvian air force would try to identify it, see if it had a flight plan, use radio and hand signals to communicate with the pilot, gesture for it to land and -- with permission from a commander -- fire warning shots. "I think we were satisfied that while there was always a risk, the procedures, if they were followed, would prevent accidents," said Walter B. Slocomb, then Defense undersecretary for policy. "The question in this (missionaries') case is, if the procedures were not followed, then why weren't they followed?" Complete Title: Debate Raged Over Drug Flight Surveillance in '94, Documents Show On the Net: State Department: http://www.state.gov National Security Archive: http://www.nsarchive.org Office of National Drug Control Policy: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/ Source: Associated Press Related Articles: Drug War Surveillance Flights Over Peru May Resume Deadly Mistake Treachery Over The Andes Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on April 25, 2001 at 05:09:54 PT:
|
| Nearly everyone who speaks English knows Murphy's Law - "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." Whether in engineering - or politics, which is, after all ,human engineering - this 'law' of human behavior has always been a matter of historical record. And you risk anything from embarraessment to catastrophic loss of life on a massive scale when you ignore it. When the factors requiring direct intervention evolve and multiply to the point you can no longer control the situation directly, you need more people to run things. Those people had all better be on the same sheet of music, or you court chaos. All very obvious. You don't need hindsight to understand the principles. Just 'common sense'. Yet the US Government, in it's insufferable arrogance, believes that it can make the DrugWar run like the proverbial Swiss watch. No SNAFUs, no FUBARs. Yeah, right. Uh-huh. It can't even co-ordinate the operations of the various agencies involved - the members of which presumably all speak the same language - and it expects to be able to control the operations in a country with a different language and culture? And what do we have to show for this hubris? We have had dead teenagers and mothers and little babies to show how 'efficiently' it runs. Savaged rights and liberties. Ruined lives, wrecked careers. The promise of a better life through a better education trampled because of a pot possession conviction prevents a school loan approval. Our military, our 'thin red line of heroes', are forced into situations where they are neither trained for nor actually want to do...and wind up dying, because some policy wonk with the presumption of 'clean hands' wants to seem 'tough on drugs' - and ride the gravy train to the top of the political (dung)heap. Or just as worse, become unwilling accomplices to murder. Yes, Children, Murphy does indeed rule human events...forget this lesson, and inevitably people wind up dying. And the tragedy is, they never had to. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |