From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: DEA seeks "shoot-down" authority
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:58:42 GMT
    <1992Sep7.233532.23464@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1992Sep7.233532.23464@news.cs.indiana.edu>, "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>34AEJ7D@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU writes:
>
>>I just saw this goodies on rec.aviation:
>
>>The  DEA  is seeking  authority  from  Congress  to  shoot down  any  aircraft
>>"suspected  of  being involved  in  drug  traffiking".  So far,  they  haven't
>>received it, but they have the borrowed F-16's ready... just in case.
>
>>Wonder if that includes passenger airliners? Probably - it wouldn't be the
>>first time for that one.
>
>>W. K. Gorman
>
>I actually posted on a related story 2 years ago that appeared in 
>"Proceedings", the journal of the Naval Institute.  I believe the
>article was called "DoD plays in the drug war" and dealt with
>the $1.2 billion budgeted for the DoD to start getting involved in
>said war.  The writer talked about the "sort concept" in IFF (identify
>friend/foe) and how it would apply to sorting out legitimate targets
>(read drug smugglers) from friendlies.  It was quite chilling given
>the celebrated failure of this "concept" when a billion dollar Aegis 
>cruiser misidentified a climbing A-300 airbus as a diving F-14 just 
>a year earlier.

They are actually getting paid to think about systems already in place? 
What a waste.

One thing a transponder does, no matter what code you set it to (provided
you don't turn it off), is make the aircraft really obvious to the regional
air traffic control computer.  All aircraft in US airspace must have
"clearance"; that is, they must have permission to be where they are.  This
is mostly so that the authorities can keep them from crashing into each
other, but it has the added benefit of  allowing the government to monitor
the border.  

In order to get a clearance, the pilot must file what is known as a flight
plan.  This includes (among other things) the origin and destination of the
flight.  If the origin was outside the US and the destination is inside the
US, the aircraft is expected to stop by customs after landing.  Customs
might search the craft, depending on "profile" or some other randomness.

If somebody tries to circumvent this procedure when crossing the border,
they are naturally suspected of either smuggling or attacking, depending on
what kind of aircraft they are flying.  I agree this is cause for suspicion,
but I do not believe suspicion is cause for violence.  There are other
reasons an aircraft might enter the country illegally and silently.  Among
them are broken electronics, Cuban defections, stupid stunts (ala Red Square
Cessna), or hijacking.  These aircraft should be followed and investigated,
not taken out on a "Shoot first, ask questions later" basis.

>While it is true that aircraft have transponders that can be 
>interrogated, identifing a "smuggler" would require that, somehow,
>smuggler aircraft would not send out the proper response to
>interrogation.  This would require a massive degree of intrusion
>into private aviation to guarantee that each plane that was "clean"
>emitted the proper ID upon interrogation.  

No, just assign him a code when he files his flight plan.

>I guess each plane would
>have to be searched before a flight and the ID would have to be

Customs already semi-randomly searches everything that enters the country.

> The shoot down idea is
>just too likely to result in the loss of "innocent" life and even
>gung-ho drug war types in private aviation are going to balk at
>such an idea.

Yup.  "Shoot first, ask questions later" is a doctrine that should be
reserved for declared wars only.

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
I don't dance to music; music dances to me.  Email me for my PGP key.
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.