Drug Warriors Shot Down Planes Before

Almost immediately after the Peruvian Air Force shot up a Baptist-owned Cessna bearing nothing more intoxicating than missionaries, the United States -- whose Central Intelligence Agency provided Peru with the Cessna's intercept data -- moved quickly to put the bulk of the blame on the Peruvians.

But even if it turns out that a CIA-employed aircrew was not as heroic in trying to stop the downing as "intelligence sources" have spun, the point is strangely moot; because according to U.S. law, no official of the American government can be held responsible for the errant shootdown of an aircraft suspected of drug smuggling in the Andes. As national attention fixates on the untimely deaths of Veronica and Charity Bowers, it's worth revisiting the circumstances that beget the legislation which effectively insulates American officials from being held accountable for the more unfortunate aspects of the drug war.

After years of providing an unfettered stream of airborne intelligence to the Colombian and Peruvian air forces, on May 1, 1994, the U.S. government abruptly stopped furnishing those countries with radar intercept information. Lawyers from the Defense, Justice and some bureaus of the State Department concluded that furnishing foreign powers with intelligence used to shoot down unarmed civilian aircraft -- a policy both Colombia and Peru were in the process of implementing -- was a violation of an International Convention on Civil Aviation 1984 amendment. (That the amendment had been backed by the U.S. as a response to the Soviet downing of Korean Airlines flight 007 gave the issue a particularly poignant edge.)

Of great concern was the lawyers' conclusion that if U.S.-provided intelligence was used in the accidental downing of an innocent aircraft -- something the Pentagon was seriously concerned about -- U.S. personnel, at both the executive and operational level, would be in definite violation of the 1984 amendment, and, under its provisions, subject to criminal charges and even the death penalty.

Not wanting U.S. government employees to be faced with premature state-mandated final exit for transmitting intercept data, the U.S. froze it's intelligence-sharing with Colombia and Peru. Upon appraisal of the freeze and the reasons for it, Drug War boosters in both the administration and Congress went into fits of apoplexy and indignation, charging the Pentagon with undercutting an effective counter-drug program that, critics noted then as now, was merely pushing coca production from one region of the Andes into another.

Among those infuriated by the Pentagon move was then Representative, now Senator, Robert Toricelli (D-NJ). At a June 22, 1994 House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing, Torricelli lambasted the intelligence-sharing suspension, calling it "incredible" that a trifle like the "legal vulnerabilities of U.S. government officials" would require a suspension of activity. In light of recent events, it's worth revisiting one of Torricelli's riffs on this point:

"The United States government tracks narco-traffickers bringing cocaine to the United States. That information is merely provided to the Peruvian or Colombian governments. They pass it to their own officials, who make their own judgements. Peruvian aircraft tracks a narco-trafficker, operating with no flight plan, often at night, with no lights. The plane is approached and wing tips attempt to communicate. There's no response. They attempt on radio communications on multiple frequencies. There's no response. There's an effort to lead them to an airport for a forced landing. They refuse and attempt to evade. And then warning shots are fired. Do you seriously believe that there is a jury in America, of any combination of American citizens, anywhere, under those circumstances, that would find a liability for U.S. government officials?"