国会记录:2003年1月10日(参议院)Page S202 PERU AIRBRIDGE PROGRAM LEAHY先生。总统先生，自1994年以来，美国政府向秘鲁提供了战术空中情报援助，帮助其阻止非法毒品越境运输。美国国防部拥有的侦察机由中央情报局雇佣的承包商运营，其任务是定位潜在的毒品航班，然后由秘鲁军用飞机拦截。秘鲁军方偶尔也会击落这些飞机。不幸的是，2001年4月20日，一架民用传教士飞机被错误地击落，导致两名无辜的美国人死亡，其中包括一名幼儿，飞行员受伤，这暴露出管理这一项目的程序存在严重缺陷。在彻底调查和修改程序后，国务院建议在哥伦比亚恢复这一项目，预计秘鲁也可能在某个时候恢复这一项目。我知道这个项目的目的是阻止非法毒品的运输。这是我们共同的目标，我们每年在安第斯山脉花费数亿美元来实现这一目标。然而,政策击落民用飞机在这种情况下不会是合法的在美国,和我担心外国飞行员执行检察官的角色,陪审团和执行者的角色,即使可能没有自卫的原因,没有证明目标飞机的运营商违反任何法律。这一政策本质上假定在毒品生产地区的任何民用飞机都是有罪的，除非被证明是无辜的，并允许在只有涉嫌参与走私毒品的情况下使用致命武力。 I have read a report issued by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in October of 2001, which describes the serious flaws in the aerial interdiction program in the Andean countries. I agree with many of the report's findings. The Intelligence Committee report I refer to was commissioned specifically to investigate the April 20, 2001 incident in Peru. Despite the appearance of legitimacy, the missionary plane was singled out by a U.S. surveillance jet as a possible drug smuggling flight. The U.S. surveillance aircraft was participating in the joint U.S.-Peru counter-drug aerial interdiction program. The surveillance jet tracked the path of the missionary flight and a Peruvian military jet responded. A confused and ultimately unsuccessful effort was made by Peruvian military and Peruvian civilian authorities to identify the missionary plane and to surmise the intentions of its crew, all of which are mandated by the standard operating procedures that govern operation of the aerial interdiction program. That information was available to the Peruvian authorities. But due to the lack of access to records of flight plans kept by Peruvian aviation authorities; the failure of a Peruvian officer to check a list of aircraft tail numbers that would have identified the missionary plane as a legitimately owned and operated aircraft; and inefficient communications between the aircraft involved and ground personnel, a presumption of guilt, without supporting evidence, led to this avoidable tragedy. This incident is a glaring example of the dire consequences resulting from attempts by law enforcement and military agencies to take the place of prosecutors and courts to mete out justice to suspected criminals. I am sympathetic to the motivations for this policy. But absent an imminent, serious threat to human health or safety, I do not believe that deadly force of this type should be used against civilian aircraft. While I hope I am proven wrong, I worry that the new procedures, while well-intentioned, may not be adequate to prevent another tragic mistake. I am also concerned that we risk providing other countries with an excuse to shoot down civilian aircraft over their territory, whether to stop illegal drugs or for some completely different reason which they may deem to be legitimate. I urge the administration to reconsider this policy. Yes, we want to stop drugs. Yes, we want to conduct aerial surveillance of suspected aircraft. But shooting civilian aircraft out of the sky, when there is no cause for self-defense, no imminent threat to innocent life, and not even proof of illegality, I believe goes too far. We have seen what can happen. Let us not repeat that mistake. ____________________