Narco News publishes the full text of the February 27, 2002 depostion by Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics & Law Enforcement Affairs Rand Beers in the federal lawsuit by Ecuador's Farmers vs. DynCorp

For background info see:

DynCorp Charged with Terrorism, by Al Giordano

Beers Fumigated in Deposition, by Al Giordano and S. González

Full Text of the Lawsuit, published by USFumigation.org

PDF document of this deposition transcript on USFumigation.org

Beers' Affidavit that got him subpoenaed on USFumigation.org

(Due to the length of this document it is broken into three parts: Pages 1-29, pages 30-59, pages 60-88)

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

3 -----------------------------------x

4 VENACIO AGUASANTA ARIAS, et al., :

5 Plaintiffs, :

6 vs. : Case Number

7 DYNCORP, et al., : 1:01CV01908

8 Defendants. :

9 -----------------------------------x

10

11 Wednesday, February 27, 2002

12 Washington, D.C.

13

14 Deposition of RAND BEERS, held at the offices of

15 the International Labor Rights Fund, 733 15th

16 Street, N.W., Suite 920, Washington, D.C.,

17 commencing at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 27,

18 2002, before SHIRLEY S MITCHELL, Notary Public for

19 the District of Columbia.

20

21

22

 

1 A P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L:

2 FOR PLAINTIFFS:

3 INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS FUND

4 BY: Terry Collingsworth, Esq.

5 Natacha Thys, Esq.

6 733 15 Street, N.W., Suite 920

7 Washington, D.C. 20005

8 (202) 347-4100

9

10 FOR DEFENDANT:

11 SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH

12 BY: Joe G. Hollingsworth, Esq.

13 1350 I Street, N.W.

14 Washington, D.C. 20005-3305

15 (202) 898-5842

16

17 FOR THE WITNESS:

18 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

19 BY: William Alvarado Rivera, Esq.

20 901 E Street, N.W.

21 Washington, D.C. 20530

22 (202) 514-6582


3

1 APPEARANCES (Continued):

2

3 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

4 BY: Leland S. VanKoten Esq.

5 P.O. Box 340

6 Ben Franklin Station

7 Washington, D.C. 20044

8 (202) 616-4230

9

10 DEPARTMENT OF STATE

11 Office of Legal Adviser

12 BY: Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq.

13 1701 N. Fort Myer Drive

14 Rosslyn, Virginia 22209

15 (703) 516-1535

16

17

18 P R E S E N T

19 R.Y. Morrel, Vice President

20 DynCorp

21

22


4

 

1 C O N T E N T S

2

3 WITNESS: Rand Beers

4

5 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE

6 Mr. Collingsworth 6

7

8

9

10

11 QUESTION MARKED: 42

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22


5

1 DEPOSITION EXHIBITS

2 (BEERS)

3

4 NUMBER DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED

5 1 Declaration entitled 11

6 Exhibit B

7 2 Class Action Complaint 16

8 3 Letter dated 2/26/02 18

9 4 Portion of Contract 22

10 5 60 Minutes interview 44

11 6 Final Report 69

12 7 State Department Report 70

13 8 Narcotics Affairs report 72

14 9 Declaration 81

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22


6

 

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 Whereupon,

3 RAND BEERS

4 was called as the witness and, after having been

5 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as

6 follows:

7 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

9 Q. Mr. Beers, I thank you for coming

10 today. My name is Terry Collingsworth, and I'm the

11 lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the Arias

12 litigation, and you're about to be deposed in that

13 action.

14 Do you understand that?

15 A. I do.

16 Q. Have you ever had your deposition

17 taken before?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. In what circumstance?

20 A. I was --

21 Q. How many times?

22 A. Once.


7

1 Q. In what circumstance?

2 A. I was deposed in association with a

3 case involving the Golden Venture, a ship which

4 smuggled Chinese aliens into the United States

5 about eight or nine ago.

6 Q. Do you understand the process that I

7 ask you a question and you answer the question

8 truthfully?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. If you don't understand the

11 question, I would like you to make that clear so

12 that I can try to restate it so that it is clear.

13 A. I understand.

14 Q. If you need a break for any reason,

15 please let me know and we will accommodate you.

16 A. That would be much appreciated if

17 necessary.

18 Q. What is your current position?

19 A. My current position is the Assistant

20 Secretary of State for International Narcotics &

21 Law Enforcement Affairs.

22 Q. How long have you held that


8

1 position?

2 A. I have been either the

3 congressionally-confirmed secretary or the acting

4 assistant secretary since the 5th of January 1998.

5 Q. Are you represented by counsel here

6 today?

7 A. I am.

8 Q. Who is your counsel here today?

9 A. These gentleman (indicating).

10 Q. All three of them?

11 A. All three of them.

12 Q. So you have three lawyers here today

13 to assure you that you are not going to spill any

14 State secrets; is that correct?

15 A. I have three counsel here. Thank

16 you.

17 Q. Prior to your current position, did

18 you hold any positions that had anything to do with

19 Plan Columbia?

20 A. Plan Columbia is a concept which did

21 not occur until after I became the Assistant

22 Secretary of State.


9

1 Q. Was there any predecessor program to

2 Plan Columbia that you did have some responsibility

3 for in a prior position?

4 A. The United States has had a

5 relationship with Columbia dealing with

6 counternarcotics for a number of decades. I first

7 began to work in the counternarcotics area in 1988

8 when I was on the National Security Counsel staff.

9 Q. Did you help in any way to design

10 that initial program?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. What was your responsibility?

13 A. There was a series of strategy

14 developments dating back, in terms of my

15 involvement, to a 1999 development of a regional

16 strategy for the Andean region. I was involved in

17 the development of that strategy, and I had bits

18 and pieces to do with most of the further

19 development from a variety of different positions.

20 Q. What is the genesis of what we now

21 call Plan Columbia?

22 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of the


10

1 question as vague. What do you mean by genesis?

2 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

3 Q. When did what we now call Plan

4 Columbia officially start?

5 A. It officially became Plan Columbia,

6 if you will, in the summer of 1999.

7 Q. What was its purpose as you

8 understood it?

9 A. The purpose of Plan Columbia was to

10 deal with the increased cultivation and illegal

11 activity associated with that cultivation

12 concerning narco trafficking in Columbia.

13 Q. Was it exclusively in Columbia?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Where else was it applying?

16 A. It was looked at as, to a lesser

17 extent, a regional strategy which involved all of

18 the Andean nations.

19 Q. Was there any explicit component of

20 Plan Columbia at its beginning in 1999 that

21 contains an antiterrorist element?

22 A. No.


11

1 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I am now going to

2 hand you a document that I would like marked as

3 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1. Just to be completely clear

4 in the record, this is Exhibit B to the DynCorp

5 Motion to Dismiss. It is the Declaration of Rand

6 Beers.

7 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 1

8 was marked for identification.)

9 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

10 Q. Mr. Beers, can you take a moment to

11 look at Exhibit Number 1 and tell me if you can

12 identify it.

13 A. It is a document which I signed as

14 representing my views with respect to our

15 relationship with DynCorp and the U.S. government's

16 involvement in relations with Columbia.

17 Q. Are you aware that you signed it

18 under oath?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Who drafted this document?

21 A. The initial draft was done by

22 DynCorp. It was reviewed within the State


12

1 Department by my staff.

2 Q. Who is DonCorp?

3 A. DynCorp.

4 Q. Do you know which particular person

5 at DynCorp drafted this?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Do you know if it was outside

8 counsel that drafted it?

9 A. No, I do not know.

10 Q. How did it come to you first?

11 A. From my staff.

12 Q. Which person on your staff?

13 A. I believe it was Bob Etheridge.

14 Q. What is his position?

15 A. He's the head liaison officer for

16 the State Department Air Wing stationed in

17 Washington, D.C.

18 Q. Can you describe for me the

19 circumstances under which you first saw this

20 document?

21 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, are you speaking

22 to the first draft of this document?


13

1 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

2 Q. Yes, your first experience with this

3 declaration.

4 A. When it was brought to my attention

5 by Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Etheridge as a document

6 which they had worked over and wanted me to look at

7 since I was to be the signer of that document.

8 Q. Did you review it at that time?

9 A. I did.

10 Q. Did you make any changes to it?

11 A. I believe I did.

12 Q. Did you make the changes in

13 handwriting on a draft?

14 A. I believe I did.

15 Q. Do you know if that document has

16 been preserved?

17 A. I do not.

18 Q. You do not know?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Tell me, looking at this document,

21 if you recall anything that you specifically added

22 to it or you specifically made as a change to it.


14

1 A. I don't recall.

2 Q. Did you make a lot of changes to it?

3 A. I don't remember.

4 Q. You don't remember?

5 A. (No response.)

6 Q. Is that a yes, you do not remember?

7 A. That is a yes, I do not remember.

8 Q. How long of a process was it in

9 terms of your time?

10 A. In terms of my time, I believe I

11 read the draft at least twice.

12 Q. Did you read a different draft?

13 A. The second draft that I would have

14 read would have reflected at least my changes.

15 Q. So you got a first draft and you

16 read it; is that correct?

17 A. I got a draft. I wouldn't call it a

18 first draft.

19 Q. The first draft you saw, you read

20 and you made some changes to?

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. You believe you made changes in


15

1 handwriting on the document?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. You gave it back to whom?

4 A. It would have either been Mr.

5 Gallagher or Mr. Etheridge. I don't remember.

6 Q. Then did you get to view a

7 subsequent draft?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. You read that document?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. Did you make any changes to it?

12 A. I do not remember a second set of

13 changes.

14 Q. You believe you signed that second

15 draft after reviewing it?

16 A. That is my belief, that's correct.

17 Q. In the context of reviewing your

18 Declaration, did you review any external documents

19 to refresh your recollection about any of the

20 representations made in this Declaration?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Did you review a copy of the


16

1 Plaintiffs' Complaint in this case?

2 A. I don't remember.

3 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Can we mark this as

4 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2.

5 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 2

6 was marked for identification.)

7 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

8 Q. Plaintiffs Exhibit 2 is a copy of

9 the Complaint filed in this action by the

10 plaintiffs. I again have a couple of extra copies

11 if anyone needs one.

12 Mr. Beers, we have handed you

13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2, it is the Plaintiffs'

14 Complaint in this case. I'm asking to you look it

15 over and tell me if you have ever seen this before.

16 A. I do to not remember having seen it.

17 Q. Mr. Beers, I want to be very clear

18 on this, and I'm not trying to be in any way

19 facetious.

20 Is it that you don't remember or

21 that you didn't see it?

22 A. Sir, I see a lot of documents in my


17

1 day-to-day business, and I can't tell you every

2 document that I've seen. It may have passed across

3 my desk. It may not have passed across my desk. I

4 truthfully cannot answer that question, other than

5 to say I don't remember.

6 Q. As you sit here today, do you have

7 any personal knowledge about the nature of the

8 Plaintiffs' Complaint in this case?

9 A. Yes, I have had the Complaint

10 explained to me.

11 Q. Tell me, if you can, what you

12 understand the Plaintiffs are attempting to achieve

13 here.

14 A. It is my understanding that the

15 Plaintiffs, Ecuadorians, are seeking to have some

16 kind of what you, a lawyer, might call injunctive

17 relief -- I'm not a lawyer, and that may not be the

18 correct term -- with respect to DynCorp's

19 activities in Columbia because of its alleged

20 effect upon the Plaintiffs.

21 Q. That's your understanding that you

22 believe that they are trying to get an injunction


18

1 to stop the spraying in Columbia?

2 A. I did not say that.

3 MR. RIVERA: Objection.

4 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

5 Q. Then correct me because that's what

6 I heard. I'm sorry.

7 A. I said injunctive relief.

8 Q. What kind of injunctive relief?

9 A. I don't know.

10 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Mr. Beers, I'm

11 handing you a document that we will call

12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3, which is a

13 February 26, 2002 letter to me from Mr. Gallagher.

14 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 3

15 was marked for identification.)

16 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

17 Q. Mr. Beers, I would like you to

18 quickly review this list of documents here that

19 were transmitted to me by Mr. Gallagher.

20 A. (Examining.)

21 Yes.

22 Q. Did you review any of those


19

1 documents in your preparation to sign the

2 Declaration that we have called Plaintiffs'

3 Exhibit 1?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Do you know of any documents that

6 relate to Plan Columbia that have informed you of

7 your view that are not on this list?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Are there any other testing

10 documents about Plan Columbia that are not on this

11 list?

12 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of the

13 question. Testing?

14 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

15 Q. Are there any documents that discuss

16 testing the safety of the fumigant used in Plan

17 Columbia that are not on this list?

18 A. I don't know the answer to that

19 question.

20 Q. Who would know the answer to that

21 question?

22 A. People who work in the Air Wing of


20

1 the State Department.

2 Q. Can you give me a name or two of

3 someone on your staff who would be the person that

4 you would go to who is an expert on the testing of

5 the safety of Plan Columbia materials?

6 A. I would go to Mr. Etheridge, but Mr.

7 Etheridge may not be the expert on that particular

8 subject. He is the head of the Liaison office in

9 Washington D.C.

10 Q. Let's now focus on what we call Plan

11 Columbia. You said it began in 1999; is that

12 correct?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. Is there a particular statute that

15 authorizes Plan Columbia?

16 A. There is an appropriations document

17 which funds Plan Columbia which is self-authorized.

18 Q. I'm sorry?

19 A. Is self-authorized.

20 Q. What does that mean,

21 self-authorized?

22 A. In the normal appropriations


21

1 process, there is an authorizing bill and there is

2 an appropriating bill. The authorizing bill

3 authorizes the appropriations, and the

4 appropriation bill actually appropriates the money.

5 This was a supplemental

6 appropriation. There was no authorizing document,

7 bill, law passed separately. So the document, the

8 bill, the law authorizes itself. This is not an

9 infrequent device.

10 Q. Does any portion of the

11 appropriation bill authorize the spraying of

12 fumigants in Ecuador?

13 A. I do not remember.

14 Q. Is it your testimony, as you sit

15 here, that it might be that you're allowed to spray

16 in Ecuador under Plan Columbia?

17 A. I think it would be more likely that

18 it would not have been prohibited.

19 Q. Is there any contractual

20 authorization for DynCorp to spray in Ecuador?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Sorry?


22

1 A. No.

2 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm going to hand you

3 another document and we're going to call this

4 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4.

5 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 4

6 was marked for identification.)

7 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

8 Q. Mr. Beers, the document I have

9 handed to you, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4, is apparently

10 some portion of a contract between the State

11 Department and DynCorp for Plan Columbia. This is

12 the version that is available on the Internet.

13 I would first like you to review

14 that and tell me if it in fact is a portion of the

15 contract between DynCorp and the Department of

16 State.

17 A. (Examining.)

18 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Excuse me, I object

19 to that question on the grounds that I don't

20 understand it. Are you saying that this purports

21 to be the contract between DynCorp and the United

22 States?


23

 

1 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Yes. I'm asking

2 Mr. Beers if he can tell me if it's true.

3 THE WITNESS: I don't know.

4 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

5 Q. Have you ever seen the contract that

6 is between the State Department and DynCorp

7 authorizing the spraying in Columbia that is going

8 on now?

9 A. Not to my knowledge.

10 Q. Who in the State Department would

11 have signed such a contract?

12 A. I don't know the answer to that

13 specifically.

14 Q. You have never seen the actual

15 contract?

16 A. No, not to my knowledge.

17 Q. I just asked you, though, if the

18 contract authorizes DynCorp to spray in Ecuador,

19 and you said no; is that correct?

20 A. That is correct.

21 Q. What is the basis of your knowledge

22 of that if you have not seen the contract?


24

1 A. Being briefed on the contract's

2 contents.

3 Q. Who briefed you on the contents?

4 A. It would have been Mr. Etheridge or

5 other members of the Air Wing.

6 Q. The?

7 A. Air Wing.

8 Q. What is the Air Wing?

9 A. It's the office within the bureau of

10 International Narcotics & Law Enforcement Affairs

11 which is responsible for working the contract with

12 DynCorp.

13 Q. So it would be fair to say, then,

14 that if DynCorp sprayed in Ecuador, that would be

15 in violation of the contract?

16 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of the

17 question. It mischaracterizes the witness's

18 testimony. For point of clarification, are you

19 talking about intentional spraying or unintentional

20 spraying into Ecuador?

21 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Let's take a look at

22 both of those.


25

1 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.

2 MR. RIVERA: You can answer the question

3 if you understood it, or if you need it read back,

4 the court reporter can do that for you.

5 THE WITNESS: As I said, DynCorp is not

6 authorized to spray in Ecuador.

7 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

8 Q. Are you aware of any requests made

9 by the government of Ecuador to the United States

10 government or the government of Columbia to stop

11 spraying in Ecuador?

12 A. No.

13 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection. Assumes facts

14 not in evidence.

15 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

16 Q. The answer was?

17 A. I am not aware.

18 Q. Are you aware of a meeting that

19 occurred roughly on Wednesday, February 13th

20 between representatives of the government of

21 Ecuador and the government of Columbia and

22 Mr. Baca, who I believe works for you?


26

1 A. No, I'm not.

2 Q. Does Mr. Baca work for you?

3 A. Yes. He is the director of the

4 Narcotics Affairs Section in the U.S. Embassy in

5 Bogota. Technically, he works for the embassador

6 and not for me. The line of command is through the

7 embassador.

8 Q. Does he report directly to you

9 information?

10 A. He reports information to me. He

11 does not report directly to me.

12 MR. RIVERA: Do we have a first name for

13 Mr. Baca?

14 THE WITNESS: Richard.

15 MR. RIVERA: Just to make sure we're

16 talking about the same Mr. Baca for clarity on the

17 record.

18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

19 Q. Richard Baca.

20 Do you know if Mr. Baca is engaged

21 in discussions about the width of an area at the

22 border of Columbia where no spraying will be


27

1 permitted?

2 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of the

3 question. Discussions with whom?

4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: The government of

5 Ecuador and the government of Columbia.

6 MR. RIVERA: The witness may answer

7 subject to the restriction that may not reveal any

8 classified or State secret information.

9 THE WITNESS: I do not know.

10 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

11 Q. Are you aware of any discussions

12 that have occurred between anyone on the issue of

13 creating an area from the Ecuadorian border into

14 Columbia where no spraying would be permitted to

15 avoid spraying in Ecuador?

16 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

17 THE WITNESS: I am aware of that, yes.

18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

19 Q. What is your awareness?

20 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

21 THE WITNESS: I'm following counsel's

22 advice on discussing the exact nature of it.


28

1 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

2 Q. I'm not clear then.

3 You are aware that these discussions

4 are going on between the government of Ecuador --

5 A. No. I'm sorry, you asked me a

6 separate question. You said am I aware of

7 discussions about a buffer zone. The answer to

8 that is yes.

9 Q. The buffer zone being an area from

10 the border of Ecuador into Columbia where no

11 spraying would be permitted to avoid spraying in

12 Ecuador; is that correct?

13 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of the

14 question as compound. You may answer.

15 THE WITNESS: I am aware of the

16 discussions of a buffer zone.

17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

18 Q. You're not aware that Mr. Baca is

19 participating in them?

20 A. No. I am not aware of discussions

21 with the government of Ecuador.

22 Q. There are discussions between the


29

1 government of Columbia and the government of the

2 United States; is that correct?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. Mr. Baca is leading those

5 discussions?

6 A. Those discussions transpired long

7 before Mr. Baca arrived at the post.

8 Q. When did those discussions occur?

9 A. At the early time of the initiation

10 of spring in the Putumayo department.

11 Q. That would have been in 1999?

12 A. No. That would have been in the

13 fall of 2000.

14 Q. How did those discussions conclude?

15 A. I'm not going to discuss that.

16 Q. You're not going to discuss that

17 because?

18 A. I don't want to draw attention to

19 the methods of operations of DynCorp and Columbian

20 pilots because we're talking about a matter that

21 may affect their safety.

22 MR. RIVERA: Just to be clear, I suppose

Due to the length of this document it is broken into three parts:

Pages 1-29, pages 30-59, pages 60-88

For more Narco News, click here

Authentic Journalism. Authentic Law.


on the U.S. government's list that are known to

 

36

 

 

 

 

 

1 be hiding or based in Sucumbios, Ecuador?

2 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

3 THE WITNESS: There is general

4 information that the BART from time to time has

5 some of its elements within Ecuador.

6 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

7 Q. Within Sucumbios, Ecuador?

8 A. Within Sucumbios.

9 Q. I don't speak Spanish. I'll do my

10 best.

11 A. Nor do I.

12 Q. I would like to direct your

13 attention to paragraph 25 of your Declaration.

14 It begins, "As directed by the

15 bureau, DynCorp International works directly with

16 the United States military," et cetera, et cetera.

17 Who within the Bureau would be the

18 person you're referring to, or persons, who are

19 directing DynCorp?

20 A. It would be me and through me the

21 office director of the State Department Air Wing,

22 Mr. John McLaughlin, and through him his

 

 

 

 


37

 

 

 

 

 

1 representatives in Columbia, and in a second chain

2 of command from the embassador through the

3 Narcotics Affairs Section within Columbia.

4 Q. Mr. Baca, does he work in

5 Narcotics --

6 A. He is the director.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. RIVERA: Make sure that counsel

9 finishes his question before you answer.

10 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

12 Q. How frequent are the interactions in

13 that chain you have just described between DynCorp

14 and the bureau? Is it a daily thing or a weekly

15 thing?

16 A. It is a constant relationship. It

17 is daily and hour to hour. They live and work

18 together.

19 Q. I understand the limitations on what

20 you can say here, but what are the general issues

21 that are being worked out on a day-to-day basis in

22 this relationship? Is it where to spray? Is it

 

 

 

 


38

 

 

 

 

 

1 what to spray? What are the general issues?

2 A. Logistics.

3 Q. What do you mean by that?

4 A. I mean the support for the aircraft

5 and associated material, gasoline, spray material

6 that are necessary for DynCorp to carry out its

7 function.

8 Q. In the next paragraph, paragraph 26

9 of your Declaration, you describe a process to

10 develop detailed flight plans.

11 Can you tell me how that works?

12 A. The government of Columbia with the

13 support of the United States determines where coca

14 cultivation exists with a degree of geographic

15 precision that allows a specific field to be

16 designated as a field to be sprayed.

17 The general geographic area and then

18 the fields themselves are determined with the final

19 responsibility for saying that those areas may be

20 sprayed residing with the government of Columbia.

21 The flight plans are then laid out

22 for a particular day to cover the fields from among

 

 

 

 


39

 

 

 

 

 

1 the list of fields which will be sprayed on that

2 day and by that flight. Prior to the take off of

3 the aircraft, the government of Columbia determines

4 whether or not the weather or wind conditions are

5 appropriate to being able to deliver the spray

6 effectively to the target selected and only if the

7 weather and wind are appropriate, it's not raining,

8 the wind is not above a certain velocity. The

9 aircraft are authorized to take off. They then

10 take off and return to base.

11 If an unusual condition results

12 during the course of the flight, then the pilot has

13 the authority to return to base on his own

14 recognizance. The planes that fly are a

15 combination of planes that are flown by DynCorp and

16 flown by the Columbian National Police.

17 Q. When you were speaking earlier about

18 the logistics and the interaction between the

19 bureau and DynCorp, is the government of Columbia

20 involved in those logistical coordination

21 activities as well?

22 A. Only insofar as it may involve a

 

 

 

 


40

 

 

 

 

 

1 flight clearance to move something from point A to

2 point B. We are responsible for supplying our own

3 DynCorp logistical back up.

4 Q. Is a computer program prepared based

5 on the aerial intelligence that is guiding the

6 spray pattern of the airplane?

7 A. There is a program set which is used

8 to guide it, yes, that's correct.

9 Q. How is that created?

10 A. It's created in the -- as a result

11 of some multispectral imagery, which is taken from

12 an aircraft which is flown by us. Not every field

13 which is sprayed is necessarily registered on that,

14 but most of the fields which are sprayed are

15 registered on that.

16 Q. Who creates the computer program in

17 cases where there is one?

18 A. It would be a, I believe,

19 subcontractor of DynCorp.

20 Q. A subcontractor of DynCorp.

21 Do you know the name of the

22 subcontractor?

 

 

 

 


41

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. I don't recall off the top of my

2 head.

3 Q. Do you know where that computer

4 program is created physically? Is it created in

5 Columbia, or is it created somewhere in the United

6 States?

7 A. I believe it's in Columbia.

8 Q. Do you know the lag time between

9 gathering the information and actually having the

10 computer program ready to be operational?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Do your flight plans take account of

13 the issue of drift?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. How do they do that?

16 A. As I said earlier, they are not

17 allowed to fly if the wind is too great.

18 Q. Is that the only precaution taken?

19 A. Pilots can make a decision in

20 flight.

21 Q. Are you aware of any studies

22 conducted regarding the issue of drift with respect

 

 

 

 


42

 

 

 

 

 

1 to Roundup, the fumigant base that is being used in

2 Plan Columbia?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Are you aware that there are any

5 studies?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Do you know what kind of spray was

8 initially being used when Plan Columbia first

9 began?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Do you know what kind of spray is

12 being used now?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Is it a derivative of Roundup?

15 A. I am not at liberty to say.

16 Q. I'm sorry?

17 A. I am not at liberty to say.

18 Q. Is that a national security secret

19 what the actual spray is?

20 MR. RIVERA: I'm going to object to the

21 question on the grounds that the identity of the

22 particular spray would be protected by a privilege

 

 

 

 


43

 

 

 

 

 

1 concerning another national security law

2 enforcement privilege or the privilege for

3 information submitted upon a pledge of

4 confidentiality with the government.

5 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection, also

6 based on the contract.

7 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: We're going to mark

8 that one because I don't believe that you will be

9 able to keep us from knowing what is the name of

10 the spray being used.

11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

12 Q. Is it a derivative of Roundup?

13 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

14 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.

15 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

16 Q. What company makes it?

17 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

18 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.

19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

20 Q. Has the spray changed?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. When did it change?

 

 

 

 


44

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. Why was it changed?

3 A. I'm not sure.

4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Let's mark this as

5 Plaintiffs' Number 5.

6 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 5

7 was marked for identification.)

8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

9 Q. I've handed you Exhibit 5, which is

10 a transcript of your famous appearance on

11 60 Minutes. I'm wondering if you could take a

12 moment to review that and tell me if it accurately

13 reflects what you said.

14 MR. RIVERA: Do you want the witness to

15 read the entirety of the transcript, or are there

16 particular portions that you would like him to look

17 at?

18 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: It's not that long.

19 He can read the portions that he did actually say.

20 MR. RIVERA: Read through it and make

21 sure you're comfortable with what you have read.

22 THE WITNESS: (Witness complies.)

 

 

 

 


45

 

 

 

 

 

1 Those are all my words to the best of my

2 recollection.

3 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

4 Q. Mr. Beers, on page 3 of this

5 document near the top, it's your first appearance,

6 I think, Mr. Rand Beers: "That's correct. By

7 comparison, table salt and baby shampoo are more

8 toxic or as toxic as glyphosate."

9 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, what page are you

10 on?

11 THE WITNESS: We haven't found the point

12 you're making.

13 It's on page 2 of mine.

14 MR. RIVERA: Let's make sure we're on the

15 same page, literally.

16 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Yes, my pages somehow

17 are different. Sorry.

18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

19 Q. On page 2 at the top, you are quoted

20 as saying, "That's correct. By comparison, table

21 salt and baby shampoo are more toxic or as toxic as

22 glyphosate."

 

 

 

 


46

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. Glyphosate.

2 Q. Is glyphosate one of the chemicals

3 being sprayed in Columbia?

4 A. Glyphosate is the generic name of

5 the chemicals that are being sprayed in Columbia.

6 Q. In the next set of questions,

7 Mr. Croft asks you about Roundup. There, you don't

8 claim any kind of national security privilege, and

9 instead you answer the questions about the

10 commercial applicability of Roundup. That's what

11 it appears to be saying.

12 Am I incorrect there?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. What are you intending to answer

15 there?

16 A. I'm doing two things at the same

17 time. I am talking about glyphosate, the generic,

18 and I am responding to his question about how a

19 specific commercial vendor might set up their own

20 guidelines.

21 Q. But you don't --

22 A. But I am not confirming that Roundup

 

 

 

 


47

 

 

 

 

 

1 is what is being used in Columbia.

2 Q. For purposes of our going to the

3 court and trying to get a court order, the issue

4 you are claiming national security on here is

5 whether or not this glyphosate that you are

6 spraying --

7 MR. GALLAGHER: Glyphosate.

8 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: We all know what we

9 mean.

10 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

11 Q. -- is in fact Roundup?

12 A. We are not acknowledging the name of

13 the supplier.

14 Q. That is a national security secret?

15 A. Counsel made the objections.

16 MR. RIVERA: Again, it's information

17 protected by one of the governmental privileges

18 including information submitted to the government

19 on a pledge of confidentiality, as well as the law

20 enforcement privilege and possibility the national

21 security privilege.

22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

 

 

 

 


48

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. But we can say that glyphosate is

2 one of the chemicals?

3 A. We can certainly talk about

4 glyphosate.

5 Q. Are there any other chemicals that

6 are added to the mixture that is being used in Plan

7 Columbia besides glyphosate?

8 A. When one speaks of glyphosate as the

9 generic active agent that is used to actually

10 affect the plan, there are another set of chemicals

11 which are included, and they are called

12 surfactants. Their purpose is to allow the

13 glyphosate to remain on the leave long enough to

14 have its active effect on the plant. It is like

15 baby shampoo.

16 Q. Is one of the ingredients that

17 you're describing called Cosmo-Flux?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. Is Cosmo-Flux part of the mixture

20 that is being used in Plan Columbia?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. Is another one something called

 

 

 

 


49

 

 

 

 

 

1 Poea, P-o-e-a?

2 A. I believe that is the correct name.

3 Q. What is the difference, as you sit

4 here, between Cosmo-Flux and Poea?

5 A. They're produced by different

6 manufacturers.

7 Q. But they do the same thing?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Which of them is being used in Plan

10 Columbia?

11 A. Both.

12 Q. Together?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Why would you need two of them?

15 A. Because in the commercially

16 available mixture which we purchase, the second of

17 the two surfactants is already an ingredient of the

18 mixture which we purchase. We add the Cosmo-Flux

19 in addition to that to have an additional

20 surfactant effect.

21 Q. Where is the Cosmo-Flux that you are

22 adding manufactured?

 

 

 

 


50

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. Do you know the name of the company

3 that manufacturers it?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Has the company that is supplying

6 it, the Cosmo-Flux that is being used in Plan

7 Columbia, has the company changed from the

8 beginning of the program until now?

9 A. That supplies the Cosmo-Flux?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. I don't know.

12 Q. Let me direct your attention to

13 page 3. About halfway down the page it says,

14 Mr. Beers: "There is no question that at certain

15 dosage levels, glyphosate or the commercial mixture

16 can injure people or kill them. What I'm trying to

17 say is that the levels that we apply are well below

18 any of those levels."

19 Did you, in fact, say that?

20 A. I did.

21 Q. What are the dimensions or factors

22 in your mind that would determine whether a certain

 

 

 

 


51

 

 

 

 

 

1 dosage level would kill someone?

2 A. The science, as I understand it, is

3 that the dosage level would have to be a

4 considerable degree greater than the very small

5 amount of dosage that a single flight would allow

6 to land on an individual.

7 The actual mixture of either

8 glyphosate or surfactant which would fall on an

9 individual, a naked person of approximately

10 150 pounds standing in a field, which would never

11 happen, would have approximately 12 milligrams of

12 the total amount of substance. Nine plus

13 milligrams would be glyphosate, the remaining 2

14 plus milligrams would be surfactant.

15 That's hardly anything,

16 approximating what the standard tests have

17 suggested would be the dosage level for glyphosate

18 and its surfactant as manufactured in the United

19 States and testing would be.

20 Q. Is there any process under which

21 someone is testing what is actually being sprayed,

22 the content of it?

 

 

 

 


52

 

 

 

 

 

1 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: I object to the form

2 of that. It's unclear to me.

3 THE WITNESS: Nor me.

4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm sorry, I'll try

5 again.

6 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

7 Q. You're getting this fumigant and

8 spraying it. Is anyone testing the actual chemical

9 compound that is being sprayed on some sort of

10 random basis to make sure that we're clear on what

11 it is made of?

12 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.

13 THE WITNESS: I have indicated that

14 products which are manufactured and sold in the

15 United States are tested regularly. That's the

16 test data we have.

17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

18 Q. Is anyone using commercially in the

19 United States the exact same chemical formulation

20 with the addition of these two surfactants that

21 you've described in testing it?

22 A. Cosmo-Flux is not sold within the

 

 

 

 


53

 

 

 

 

 

1 United States.

2 Q. When you say that the people who are

3 testing it in the United States, that would be

4 irrelevant to whether the chemical as used is the

5 same, right?

6 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of the

7 question.

8 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Objection.

9 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

10 Q. Everyone objected to the form of the

11 question, but the issue is whether you understood

12 the question.

13 MR. RIVERA: If you understand the

14 question, you may answer subject to the objection.

15 THE WITNESS: As to the matter of the

16 irrelevance of the test that has been done in the

17 United States, I believe it is relevant to the

18 matter at hand.

19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

20 Q. Why is that?

21 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, Counsel. I'm

22 going back and flipping through Mr. Beers'

 

 

 

 


54

 

 

 

 

 

1 Declaration, and it seems that we're going a bit

2 far afield from what he was supposed to be

3 testifying to today. Obviously, we've been giving

4 some latitude to talk somewhat about the herbicide.

5 But my understanding of his authorization and the

6 request for his testimony today really concerns the

7 policy position of the State Department and various

8 aspects of the impact of this litigation on

9 national security and other concerns that are

10 described in the Declaration rather than the

11 science or the health effects, for the most part,

12 of the herbicide.

13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm going to direct

14 you to paragraphs 22 and 23 of Mr. Beers'

15 Declaration, both of which involve his assertions

16 that there are no grounds to suggest concern for

17 human health. I believe that my questions are

18 extremely relevant there, and I have just a few

19 more which I would like to complete.

20 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

21 Q. You were beginning to explain to me

22 the relevance of the testing that is done on one

 

 

 

 


55

 

 

 

 

 

1 compound to the actual health effects of the

2 compound being used in Columbia which is different.

3 Why did you say that it was

4 relevant?

5 A. When you get to the actual mixture

6 that is being sprayed in Columbia, that is when it

7 is mixed with the water, which is the largest

8 single content of the mixture, the glyphosate and

9 the surfactant that comes with the glyphosate

10 represent a certain proportion which is the bulk of

11 the combination, and 1 percent of the actual out

12 the nozzle of the spray is Cosmo-Flux.

13 We have, because it is not sold in

14 the United States, asked EPA to look at the

15 ingredients as provided on a proprietary basis by

16 the manufacturer. And EPA has, after looking at

17 the contents, judged the contents of Cosmo-Flux as

18 safe to be sprayed on food crops in the United

19 States.

20 That, in combination with the

21 testing against the commercially available products

22 which are comparable to what we use, gives us the

 

 

 

 


56

 

 

 

 

 

1 view that is contained in the statement.

2 Q. Is it true that no one has actually

3 tested on humans the specific compounds together

4 that are being used in Plan Columbia?

5 A. To the best of my knowledge, no one

6 tests on humans or any of the herbicides or

7 pesticides. They are all done on animals.

8 Q. Are you aware of any scientific

9 tests done on animals to test the effects of the

10 specific combination of compounds being sprayed in

11 Plan Columbia?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Are there any plans to do such a

14 test?

15 A. We are considering the possibility.

16 Q. Who would conduct the test that you

17 are considering?

18 A. I don't know.

19 Q. Are you working with the EPA on

20 that?

21 A. The EPA would certainly be involved.

22 Q. Are you familiar with any legal

 

 

 

 


57

 

 

 

 

 

1 requirement under the Executive Order 12114 to test

2 these materials prior to using them in a context

3 that might harm humans?

4 A. I'm not familiar with that executive

5 order and would need to review it before I could

6 answer your question.

7 Q. Are you aware of any discussions

8 that have occurred in your bureau about the need to

9 conduct an environmental impact study?

10 MR. RIVERA: I'm going to object to the

11 question to the extent it requires the witness to

12 reveal any information that would be protected by

13 the deliberative process or any other applicable

14 privilege.

15 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

16 Q. I believe you can answer the

17 question without giving up the details that counsel

18 has enumerated.

19 MR. RIVERA: If you understand the

20 question.

21 THE WITNESS: I guess you're going to

22 have to reformulate the question.

 

 

 

 


58

 

 

 

 

 

1 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

2 Q. Have there been any discussions

3 inside your bureau regarding the need to comply

4 with environmental regulations by testing the

5 impact of the compound that you are spraying in

6 Columbia?

7 MR. RIVERA: Just a question of

8 clarification. The impact on the environment?

9 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: No. Humans or the

10 environment.

11 MR. RIVERA: I thought I heard

12 environment somewhere in your qualifications.

13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Humans are existing

14 in the environment.

15 MR. RIVERA: That's helpful to be clear

16 on the question.

17 THE WITNESS: At this particular point in

18 time, I am not aware of any specific plans to do

19 any environmental impact study of this particular

20 spray compound.

21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

22 Q. You're not familiar with Executive

 

 

 

 


59

 

 

 

 

 

1 Order 12114?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Are you aware of whether there are

4 any laws in Columbia that would require an

5 environmental impact study to be done before you

6 could spray something like the fumigant you are

7 using?

8 A. I'm not specifically aware of any,

9 no.

10 Q. Are you aware of any discussions

11 about whether the program is in compliance with the

12 law in Columbia on that dimension?

13 A. Yes. It is my understanding that it

14 is in compliance with the law in Columbia.

15 Q. Does the fumigant that you are using

16 in Columbia kill food crops like corn, yucca, et

17 cetera?

18 A. It kills plants.

19 Q. So if a farmer's plants were sprayed

20 by this fumigant, it would kill them, just as it is

21 killing the cocaine?

22 A. It could.

 

 

 

 


60

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. There is no way that this fumigant

2 distinguishes between cocaine and corn. It kills

3 plants; is that correct?

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. You had earlier said that the dosage

6 is low enough that it cannot hurt humans in terms

7 of the spray that you are using in Columbia,

8 correct?

9 A. I said that it is not significant

10 enough to kill humans.

11 Q. Could it injure humans?

12 A. The studies that have been done on

13 glyphosate have suggested that there is a mild eye

14 irritation that results.

15 Q. Are you aware of any other health

16 effects just from the glyphosate?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Again, that study did not introduce

19 the Cosmo-Flux; is that correct?

20 A. But it did have the surfactant that

21 is part of the glyphosate mixture.

22 Q. Which surfactant, what is the word?

 

 

 

 


61

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. The other one, the Bpoe.

2 Q. Would someone increase their chances

3 of suffering an injury if they are sprayed

4 frequently? Is frequency a factor in your

5 determination?

6 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, I object to the

7 form of the question.

8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

9 Q. I will be happy to try again if you

10 don't understand it, Mr. Beers.

11 A. There is a second set of studies

12 that are done on most herbicides, and they are

13 exposure -- prolonged exposure to the substance.

14 It is my understanding that those studies are

15 conducted over a 90-day period, and they presume a

16 certain dosage level administered on a daily basis.

17 Those studies with respect to

18 glyphosate do not suggest a long-term effect.

19 However, and more importantly, it is unlikely that

20 an individual would be sprayed more than once. It

21 is highly unlikely that an individual would ever be

22 sprayed more than twice, period.

 

 

 

 


62

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. But that would be a factor if in

2 fact they were? In increasing the risk to a

3 person, the dosage is one factor, but the frequency

4 is another factor?

5 A. That's what I said.

6 Q. Are you aware of any rules or

7 recommendations by the commercial manufacturers of

8 this kind of fumigant that you are using in

9 Columbia dealing with the altitude from which it

10 should be sprayed?

11 A. I believe there are some references

12 in the guidelines.

13 Q. Do you have any knowledge of what

14 those guidelines are? Should it be sprayed very

15 high up or close to the ground?

16 A. It should be sprayed close to the

17 ground.

18 Q. How close to the ground?

19 A. I don't remember precisely, but the

20 guidelines say.

21 Q. Do you believe, as you sit here,

22 that the DynCorp program in Columbia is in

 

 

 

 


63

 

 

 

 

 

1 compliance with those guidelines in terms of

2 altitude?

3 MR. RIVERA: Object to the question.

4 Could you clarify, whose guidelines?

5 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

6 Q. The guidelines that you referred to

7 that the commercial manufacturers recommend.

8 A. As I cannot remember what the

9 commercial guidelines are, I'm at odds to respond

10 to your question.

11 Q. Is it part of the direction that the

12 bureau is giving DynCorp to be in compliance with

13 the commercially-recommended applications of the

14 fumigant?

15 A. We have our own guidelines.

16 Q. Are they different in terms of the

17 altitude recommendation than the commercial

18 guidelines?

19 A. Our guidelines are 50 to 150 feet.

20 Q. What are the commercial --

21 A. I don't know.

22 Q. Do the commercial vendors put a

 

 

 

 


64

 

 

 

 

 

1 warning label on the fumigant if it has glyphosate

2 in it?

3 A. I believe so.

4 Q. Does the warning include telling

5 humans to be out of the area?

6 A. I'm not positive about that.

7 Q. Let's go back to your 60 Minutes

8 transcript, page 2. You are specifically asked the

9 question near the top of the page by Mr. Croft that

10 the commercial Roundup says that people should stay

11 out of area, as well as pets, if the area is being

12 sprayed, and you respond to the question.

13 Do you have any knowledge at all of

14 the commercial regulations?

15 A. I'm sorry, I still don't see it on

16 the page.

17 Q. Page 2, the second question

18 Mr. Croft asks you, it begins, "If you looked at

19 the --

20 A. Okay, got it.

21 Q. Could you review both the question

22 and your response.

 

 

 

 


65

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. (Examining.)

2 Q. Do you have any knowledge of the

3 commercial warning that Roundup is using?

4 A. Mr. Croft, I believe, is correct in

5 quoting the Roundup web site.

6 I have never said we're using

7 Roundup, sir.

8 Q. Is it your position that it is okay,

9 that you would not warn people to be out of the

10 area when you're about to spray the actual fumigant

11 that you're using in Columbia?

12 A. We do not warn people to be out of

13 the area when we are spraying.

14 Q. Because it's perfectly safe to be

15 sprayed?

16 A. It is also a risk.

17 Q. Could you acknowledge the first part

18 of the question, though.

19 Is it your position that it is

20 perfectly safe to be sprayed by the actual fumigant

21 that you are using in Columbia?

22 A. As I have said earlier, there are

 

 

 

 


66

 

 

 

 

 

1 testing indications that it could be mildly

2 irritating to the eye. If you judge that to be

3 unsafe, then I'm not in a position to say it's

4 safe. We do not judge it to be harmful to the

5 health of individuals.

6 Q. You also say on that same page that

7 you compare it to table salt, is that correct, on

8 the level of toxicity?

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. Are you aware that the New York

11 Attorney General in 1996 got an injunction against

12 Monsanto for saying that glyphosate is as safe as

13 table salt because it was proved to be untrue?

14 A. No, I'm unaware of that.

15 Q. What do you base your statement on

16 that it is as safe as table salt?

17 A. Information that has been provided

18 to us in comparing the toxicity levels, which are

19 done by independent testers to determine what the

20 toxicity of table salt or baby shampoo is. So I'm

21 looking at test results. We are looking at test

22 results.

 

 

 

 


67

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. But you said the specific compound

2 that you are using has not been tested on humans;

3 is that correct?

4 A. That's correct. Nor are any of the

5 tests, to the best of my knowledge, on humans.

6 Q. What date are you referring to?

7 A. I'm referring to the standard tests

8 that EPA sets up to look at toxicity levels of

9 substances.

10 Q. As part of the bureau's oversight in

11 coordination with DynCorp, is there any attempt to

12 try to spray areas when populations are not likely

13 to be there?

14 A. Sure.

15 Q. What kinds of guidelines are you

16 providing?

17 A. The general guideline, which is to

18 not spray people if it is at all avoidable, to not

19 spray houses, to not spray fields that are clearly

20 food crop fields. But if food crop is intercropped

21 with coca, then it is coca.

22 Q. Are these guidelines in a written

 

 

 

 


68

 

 

 

 

 

1 form, or are they part of the contract?

2 A. I'm not sure.

3 Q. But you are sure that that is one of

4 the factors in entering into this coordination with

5 DynCorp?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Do you know if the pilots themselves

8 are instructed as to the possible risks of spraying

9 humans?

10 A. I don't know that for a fact.

11 Q. Do you know if the containers for

12 the fumigant that you are using contain warning

13 labels of any sort?

14 A. I don't know that.

15 Q. Should they, according to your

16 understanding of the safety precautions?

17 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of the

18 question. You're asking him should the --

19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

20 Q. Is there any regulation, guideline

21 or requirement of the contract or any other

22 direction that your bureau has given to DynCorp to

 

 

 

 


69

 

 

 

 

 

1 say that the barrel storing this material for use

2 must have a warning label as to its possible

3 negative health effects?

4 A. I don't know.

5 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Let's mark this as

6 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6.

7 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 6

8 was marked for identification.)

9 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

10 Q. Mr. Beers, I've handed you

11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6, which is a report on the

12 study of health complaints in Columbia related to

13 aerial eradication. This was produced to me by

14 Mr. Gallagher, and it's on the list that I showed

15 you earlier of the documents produced. I believe

16 you said that you had not reviewed any of the

17 documents.

18 So my question is simply have you

19 ever reviewed this particular report?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. In what context?

22 A. It was information that had been

 

 

 

 


70

 

 

 

 

 

1 produced by the embassy concerning health effects

2 that was of interest to me. I read it.

3 Q. What conclusion, if any, did you

4 draw from this report regarding the risk to humans

5 being sprayed with the fumigant that you are using

6 in Columbia?

7 A. That this report did not provide a

8 conclusion that would suggest that there is a risk

9 to humans.

10 Q. Did it prove the opposite, though,

11 in your mind that there is no risk to humans?

12 A. No.

13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I have another report

14 that we're going to call Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7.

15 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 7

16 was marked for identification.)

17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

18 Q. Have you ever seen this report

19 before?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did you have a role in drafting it?

22 A. No.

 

 

 

 


71

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. Did you have a review role?

2 A. Not in the chain of its

3 finalization, no.

4 Q. In what sense did you?

5 A. I read it in conjunction with my

6 work. I looked at it as it was being prepared. I

7 did not personally sign off on this document when

8 it went forward.

9 Q. The pages aren't numbered, but if

10 you take the second to last page, the second new

11 paragraph, "Human dietary exposures and risks are

12 minimal. Exposure to workers," et cetera.

13 Do you know what studies, if any,

14 that is based on?

15 A. There are, as I said earlier, a

16 series of studies which have been done with

17 respect, on the one hand, to the specific testing

18 for toxicity and long-term effects on individuals?

19 There have been other studies which

20 use that information and other information that

21 reach the conclusions of the first sentence,

22 including studies that were done by the United

 

 

 

 


72

 

 

 

 

 

1 Nations.

2 Q. Is it your understanding that this

3 particular paragraph I have pointed to you, if you

4 look at the paragraph above and below it, there's a

5 reference to the word "glyphosate".

6 Is it your understanding that these

7 studies were limited to glyphosate?

8 A. And its normally included

9 surfactants.

10 Q. But not the mixture that you're

11 using in Columbia?

12 A. It did not include reference to any

13 Cosmo-Flux, to the best of my knowledge.

14 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I have one more

15 document that we will call Plaintiffs' Number 8.

16 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 8

17 was marked for identification.)

18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

19 Q. Have you ever seen this before,

20 Mr. Beers?

21 A. I certainly have seen something that

22 is very similar to it. What doesn't -- what I

 

 

 

 


73

 

 

 

 

 

1 don't remember is a document that began with these

2 questions. I remember a document very much like

3 this, if not the same thing, which included

4 questions and answers like these.

5 Q. The document that you're referring

6 to, was it still focused on the program in

7 Columbia?

8 A. Yes, and it was produced by the

9 Narcotics Affairs Section.

10 Q. Do you know who in the Narcotics

11 Affairs Section produced the document you recall,

12 whether or not it was this one?

13 A. I believe the individual in question

14 would have been Suzanne Shelton.

15 Q. What is her position?

16 A. She is a member of the Narcotics

17 Affairs Section.

18 Q. Is she a scientist?

19 A. No.

20 Q. What is her background?

21 A. She's a lawyer.

22 Q. On that note, Mr. Beers, your

 

 

 

 


74

 

 

 

 

 

1 background is history; is that correct?

2 A. I have a rather eclectic background.

3 But, yes, that's my academic training.

4 Q. But you're not a chemist or a

5 biologist?

6 A. I am not a scientist.

7 Q. Are you aware of any studies that

8 have tested just glyphosate for damage from

9 inhalation on humans?

10 A. Not that I remember. However --

11 excuse me -- the standard test includes inhalation.

12 Q. The standard test?

13 A. Dermatology, inhalation, eye

14 irritation and a fourth category.

15 Q. What is the fourth category?

16 A. I don't remember.

17 Q. When you say standard test though,

18 again you're referring to the tests on the

19 commercial products here in the United States?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. Mr. Beers, the area of Columbia, the

22 width of which you have not told me but that we

 

 

 

 


75

 

 

 

 

 

1 have called the no-spray zone, is there any

2 alternative being used there to eradicate the coca

3 plants?

4 A. No, not to my knowledge.

5 Q. I'm not under oath, but I'm going to

6 tell you truthfully that my 7-year-old and I were

7 sort of discussing this case, and he suggested that

8 hand picking -- his name is Alexander -- seems to

9 be a logical thing to do, that people wouldn't be

10 hurt and they could actually find the real plants

11 that they're looking for.

12 Has that option been explored at all

13 by your bureau?

14 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the form of

15 the question to the extent that it requires

16 divulging any classified or otherwise protected

17 information. Otherwise, you may answer.

18 THE WITNESS: We use manual eradication

19 in other countries. The governments, excuse me, of

20 those countries use manual eradiation. Peru and

21 Bolivia, to be specific, in the Andean region.

22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

 

 

 

 


76

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. Why is it not being used in

2 Columbia?

3 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

4 THE WITNESS: The volume of the coca, the

5 security considerations to put people on the

6 ground.

7 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

8 Q. I would like to take about a

9 five-minute break. We're close to wrapping up.

10 (A brief recess was taken.)

11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

12 Q. Thank you for your indulgence,

13 Mr. Beers. I'm just about done here.

14 Have you heard of any studies,

15 particularly in California, where students have

16 reported negative health effects from the spraying

17 of the fumigant known as Roundup?

18 A. No, I can't say that I have.

19 Q. If we look at Exhibits 6, 7 and 8,

20 the three studies that were produced by

21 Mr. Gallagher to me -- I'll be very careful with

22 the question, and you'll probably be instructed to

 

 

 

 


77

 

 

 

 

 

1 be very careful with the answer -- I'm not asking

2 you for anything, other than whether you can tell

3 me if there are other studies that you're aware of

4 that show any negative effects of the fumigant that

5 you are using in Columbia?

6 A. I know of no studies that show a

7 negative effect of the fumigant that we are using

8 in Columbia.

9 Q. Do you know of any studies, other

10 than these three that are Exhibit 6 through 8, that

11 show that it does not hurt anyone to spray the

12 fumigant that you are using in Columbia, that are

13 specific to that fumigant?

14 MR. RIVERA: If I can just clarify the

15 question, you're asking for State Department

16 information or studies that are reflected in State

17 Department materials as opposed to EPA or anyone

18 else?

19 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Any study.

20 THE WITNESS: Relevant to Columbia?

21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

22 Q. Yes.

 

 

 

 


78

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. There is another study which I have

2 not seen the final version of it -- although, it

3 may now exist -- which was similar to the Aponte

4 study, a different area and a larger group.

5 Q. Do you know who is conducting that

6 study?

7 A. I believe it is the same group of

8 people.

9 Q. That did?

10 A. The Aponte study.

11 Q. Was any study done dealing with the

12 fumigant that you are using in Columbia on Patrick

13 Air Force Base?

14 A. I'm not aware of one.

15 Q. Who trains the DynCorp pilots that

16 are operating in Columbia?

17 A. The DynCorp pilots that are

18 operating in Columbia are provided through a

19 subcontractor, East Corporation. The Air Wing and

20 DynCorp together have a pilot training program. I

21 can't say in any individual instance who

22 specifically trained that pilot on this mission.

 

 

 

 


79

 

 

 

 

 

1 They are all experienced pilots.

2 Q. But your wing division does some

3 training in Columbia?

4 A. Or in Patrick.

5 Q. For people that would be going down

6 to Columbia?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. You said the Columbian government

9 could stop a particular fumigation flight if the

10 wind was to great?

11 A. Right.

12 Q. Are there any other --

13 A. Or any other reason. They could

14 stop it, period.

15 MR. RIVERA: Let me instruct the witness

16 to let Mr. Collingsworth finish his question.

17 THE WITNESS: Sorry.

18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

19 Q. Are you aware of any other reasons

20 that in fact have been used to stop a flight, other

21 than weather, by the Columbian government?

22 A. You're including wind within the

 

 

 

 


80

 

 

 

 

 

1 weather question?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. Yes, I am.

4 Q. What was the reason or reasons?

5 A. The government of Columbia stopped

6 spraying in Putumayo on approximately the 5th of

7 February of the year 2001 because they wanted to

8 end spraying in Putumayo at that time to see what

9 would happen with respect to the local campesino

10 signing up for alternative development.

11 Q. Was it resumed?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Any other reasons you're aware of

14 why the Columbian government stopped the spraying?

15 MR. RIVERA: Stopped the spraying in

16 Putumayo?

17 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: In Columbia.

18 MR. RIVERA: Ever?

19 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Yes.

20 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not.

21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

22 Q. Could your bureau stop a particular

 

 

 

 


81

 

 

 

 

 

1 spray run for any reason?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What would the reasons be that your

4 bureau would be authorized to stop a particular

5 fumigation run in Columbia?

6 A. In the judgment of the people who

7 were involved, the spraying conditions were such

8 that it was inappropriate, assuming that the

9 Columbian government hadn't on its on recognizance

10 stopped that or for other considerations which

11 might be political.

12 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm handing you an

13 exhibit that we're going to mark as Plaintiffs'

14 Number 9.

15 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 9

16 was marked for identification.)

17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

18 Q. Mr. Beers, I've handed you a

19 Declaration signed by a Salvador Quishpe, who is

20 the political director of an organization called

21 Conaie.

22 Do you know that organization? Have

 

 

 

 


82

 

 

 

 

 

1 you heard of them before?

2 A. I'm not sure.

3 Q. I would direct your attention to

4 paragraph number 5, the last paragraph.

5 A. (Witness complies.)

6 Q. If you could read that paragraph.

7 MR. RIVERA: Can Mr. Beers have a minute

8 to read the entire document?

9 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Sure.

10 MR. RIVERA: Thank you.

11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

12 Q. Have you had a chance to review

13 paragraph number five?

14 A. I have.

15 Q. In paragraph number five, the

16 declarant is questioning the foreign policy

17 objectives of the United States government.

18 And my question to you is, is a

19 factor of your foreign policy considerations that

20 are enumerated throughout your own Declaration

21 trying to maintain good relations with the local

22 populations who are not drug traffickers and who

 

 

 

 


83

 

 

 

 

 

1 are not terrorists?

2 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, the local

3 population in Columbia?

4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: And Ecuador.

5 THE WITNESS: It is not the policy of the

6 United States to drive people away from the United

7 States.

8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

9 Q. Have you ever sent or directed

10 anyone to go to Ecuador to specifically investigate

11 whether there are effects that would be visible

12 that would be consistent with the claim that the

13 fumigation has occurred in Ecuador?

14 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the extent

15 that it calls for a revealing any classified or

16 other national security protected information.

17 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.

18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

19 Q. Are there any plans to do that?

20 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

21 THE WITNESS: Not at present.

22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

 

 

 

 


84

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. Are you aware of any study done by

2 anyone that would indicate to your satisfaction

3 that there is no harm done in Ecuador that would be

4 consistent with fumigation?

5 A. We have looked into the allegations,

6 and we have found no evidence that spraying was

7 done in Ecuador or that spray drifted into Ecuador.

8 Q. But you have said that you didn't

9 send anyone to Ecuador to do that.

10 How did you accomplish that?

11 A. We know where the planes are.

12 Q. So based on your knowledge of where

13 the planes actually flew?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. What evidence do you have of the

16 plane flight paths that would to you demonstrate

17 that it is impossible that they sprayed in Ecuador?

18 A. Almost all planes and one plane on

19 every flight of planes is equipped with a location

20 system which tells us where the plane is.

21 Q. What is the closest, as you sit here

22 today, that you're aware of a plane that was

 

 

 

 


85

 

 

 

 

 

1 spraying under Plan Columbia came to the border

2 with Ecuador ever in the history of Plan Columbia?

3 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the question

4 to the extent that it calls for revealing any

5 classified State secret information.

6 THE WITNESS: I'm not in a position to

7 answer that question.

8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

9 Q. Do you know the answer to it and

10 you're not answering because --

11 A. No, I don't know the answer to the

12 question.

13 Q. Who would know the answer to that

14 question on your staff? Is there someone who is

15 particularly --

16 A. Officials in the Air Wing.

17 Q. Is there one particular official who

18 would be most likely to have that information?

19 A. I'm not sure.

20 Q. Do you have some options for me?

21 A. Mr. Etheridge.

22 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Mr. Beers, that

 

 

 

 


86

 

 

 

 

 

1 concludes my questions. Thank you very much.

2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

3 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Does anyone else have

4 anything?

5 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: No questions.

6 (Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the deposition

7 of RAND BEERS was concluded.)

8 * * * * *

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 

 

 

 


87

 

 

 

 

 

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )

3

4 I, RAND BEERS, the witness herein, having

5 read the foregoing testimony of the pages of this

6 deposition do hereby certify it to be a true and

7 correct transcript, subject to the corrections, if

8 any, shown on the attached page.

9

10

11 ________________________

12 RAND BEERS

13

14 Subscribed and sworn to before me

15 this ______day of____________, 2002.

16 __________________________________.

17

18

19

20

21

22

 

 

 

 


88

 

 

 

 

 

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )

3

4 I, SHIRLEY S. MITCHELL, Notary Public

5 within and for the District of Columbia, do hereby

6 certify:

7 That the witness whose deposition is

8 hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn and that the

9 within transcript is a true record of the testimony

10 given by such witness.

11 I further certify that I am not related

12 to any of the parties to this action by blood or

13 marriage and that I am in no way interested in the

14 outcome of this matter.

15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set

16 my hand this _______day of __________, 2002.

17

18

19 __________________________

20 My Commission Expires:

21 March 31, 2005

22

 

 

 

 

36

 

 

 

 

 

1 be hiding or based in Sucumbios, Ecuador?

2 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

3 THE WITNESS: There is general

4 information that the BART from time to time has

5 some of its elements within Ecuador.

6 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

7 Q. Within Sucumbios, Ecuador?

8 A. Within Sucumbios.

9 Q. I don't speak Spanish. I'll do my

10 best.

11 A. Nor do I.

12 Q. I would like to direct your

13 attention to paragraph 25 of your Declaration.

14 It begins, "As directed by the

15 bureau, DynCorp International works directly with

16 the United States military," et cetera, et cetera.

17 Who within the Bureau would be the

18 person you're referring to, or persons, who are

19 directing DynCorp?

20 A. It would be me and through me the

21 office director of the State Department Air Wing,

22 Mr. John McLaughlin, and through him his

 

 

 

 


37

 

 

 

 

 

1 representatives in Columbia, and in a second chain

2 of command from the embassador through the

3 Narcotics Affairs Section within Columbia.

4 Q. Mr. Baca, does he work in

5 Narcotics --

6 A. He is the director.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. RIVERA: Make sure that counsel

9 finishes his question before you answer.

10 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

12 Q. How frequent are the interactions in

13 that chain you have just described between DynCorp

14 and the bureau? Is it a daily thing or a weekly

15 thing?

16 A. It is a constant relationship. It

17 is daily and hour to hour. They live and work

18 together.

19 Q. I understand the limitations on what

20 you can say here, but what are the general issues

21 that are being worked out on a day-to-day basis in

22 this relationship? Is it where to spray? Is it

 

 

 

 


38

 

 

 

 

 

1 what to spray? What are the general issues?

2 A. Logistics.

3 Q. What do you mean by that?

4 A. I mean the support for the aircraft

5 and associated material, gasoline, spray material

6 that are necessary for DynCorp to carry out its

7 function.

8 Q. In the next paragraph, paragraph 26

9 of your Declaration, you describe a process to

10 develop detailed flight plans.

11 Can you tell me how that works?

12 A. The government of Columbia with the

13 support of the United States determines where coca

14 cultivation exists with a degree of geographic

15 precision that allows a specific field to be

16 designated as a field to be sprayed.

17 The general geographic area and then

18 the fields themselves are determined with the final

19 responsibility for saying that those areas may be

20 sprayed residing with the government of Columbia.

21 The flight plans are then laid out

22 for a particular day to cover the fields from among

 

 

 

 


39

 

 

 

 

 

1 the list of fields which will be sprayed on that

2 day and by that flight. Prior to the take off of

3 the aircraft, the government of Columbia determines

4 whether or not the weather or wind conditions are

5 appropriate to being able to deliver the spray

6 effectively to the target selected and only if the

7 weather and wind are appropriate, it's not raining,

8 the wind is not above a certain velocity. The

9 aircraft are authorized to take off. They then

10 take off and return to base.

11 If an unusual condition results

12 during the course of the flight, then the pilot has

13 the authority to return to base on his own

14 recognizance. The planes that fly are a

15 combination of planes that are flown by DynCorp and

16 flown by the Columbian National Police.

17 Q. When you were speaking earlier about

18 the logistics and the interaction between the

19 bureau and DynCorp, is the government of Columbia

20 involved in those logistical coordination

21 activities as well?

22 A. Only insofar as it may involve a

 

 

 

 


40

 

 

 

 

 

1 flight clearance to move something from point A to

2 point B. We are responsible for supplying our own

3 DynCorp logistical back up.

4 Q. Is a computer program prepared based

5 on the aerial intelligence that is guiding the

6 spray pattern of the airplane?

7 A. There is a program set which is used

8 to guide it, yes, that's correct.

9 Q. How is that created?

10 A. It's created in the -- as a result

11 of some multispectral imagery, which is taken from

12 an aircraft which is flown by us. Not every field

13 which is sprayed is necessarily registered on that,

14 but most of the fields which are sprayed are

15 registered on that.

16 Q. Who creates the computer program in

17 cases where there is one?

18 A. It would be a, I believe,

19 subcontractor of DynCorp.

20 Q. A subcontractor of DynCorp.

21 Do you know the name of the

22 subcontractor?

 

 

 

 


41

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. I don't recall off the top of my

2 head.

3 Q. Do you know where that computer

4 program is created physically? Is it created in

5 Columbia, or is it created somewhere in the United

6 States?

7 A. I believe it's in Columbia.

8 Q. Do you know the lag time between

9 gathering the information and actually having the

10 computer program ready to be operational?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Do your flight plans take account of

13 the issue of drift?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. How do they do that?

16 A. As I said earlier, they are not

17 allowed to fly if the wind is too great.

18 Q. Is that the only precaution taken?

19 A. Pilots can make a decision in

20 flight.

21 Q. Are you aware of any studies

22 conducted regarding the issue of drift with respect

 

 

 

 


42

 

 

 

 

 

1 to Roundup, the fumigant base that is being used in

2 Plan Columbia?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Are you aware that there are any

5 studies?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Do you know what kind of spray was

8 initially being used when Plan Columbia first

9 began?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Do you know what kind of spray is

12 being used now?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Is it a derivative of Roundup?

15 A. I am not at liberty to say.

16 Q. I'm sorry?

17 A. I am not at liberty to say.

18 Q. Is that a national security secret

19 what the actual spray is?

20 MR. RIVERA: I'm going to object to the

21 question on the grounds that the identity of the

22 particular spray would be protected by a privilege

 

 

 

 


43

 

 

 

 

 

1 concerning another national security law

2 enforcement privilege or the privilege for

3 information submitted upon a pledge of

4 confidentiality with the government.

5 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection, also

6 based on the contract.

7 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: We're going to mark

8 that one because I don't believe that you will be

9 able to keep us from knowing what is the name of

10 the spray being used.

11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

12 Q. Is it a derivative of Roundup?

13 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

14 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.

15 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

16 Q. What company makes it?

17 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

18 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.

19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

20 Q. Has the spray changed?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. When did it change?

 

 

 

 


44

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. Why was it changed?

3 A. I'm not sure.

4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Let's mark this as

5 Plaintiffs' Number 5.

6 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 5

7 was marked for identification.)

8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

9 Q. I've handed you Exhibit 5, which is

10 a transcript of your famous appearance on

11 60 Minutes. I'm wondering if you could take a

12 moment to review that and tell me if it accurately

13 reflects what you said.

14 MR. RIVERA: Do you want the witness to

15 read the entirety of the transcript, or are there

16 particular portions that you would like him to look

17 at?

18 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: It's not that long.

19 He can read the portions that he did actually say.

20 MR. RIVERA: Read through it and make

21 sure you're comfortable with what you have read.

22 THE WITNESS: (Witness complies.)

 

 

 

 


45

 

 

 

 

 

1 Those are all my words to the best of my

2 recollection.

3 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

4 Q. Mr. Beers, on page 3 of this

5 document near the top, it's your first appearance,

6 I think, Mr. Rand Beers: "That's correct. By

7 comparison, table salt and baby shampoo are more

8 toxic or as toxic as glyphosate."

9 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, what page are you

10 on?

11 THE WITNESS: We haven't found the point

12 you're making.

13 It's on page 2 of mine.

14 MR. RIVERA: Let's make sure we're on the

15 same page, literally.

16 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Yes, my pages somehow

17 are different. Sorry.

18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

19 Q. On page 2 at the top, you are quoted

20 as saying, "That's correct. By comparison, table

21 salt and baby shampoo are more toxic or as toxic as

22 glyphosate."

 

 

 

 


46

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. Glyphosate.

2 Q. Is glyphosate one of the chemicals

3 being sprayed in Columbia?

4 A. Glyphosate is the generic name of

5 the chemicals that are being sprayed in Columbia.

6 Q. In the next set of questions,

7 Mr. Croft asks you about Roundup. There, you don't

8 claim any kind of national security privilege, and

9 instead you answer the questions about the

10 commercial applicability of Roundup. That's what

11 it appears to be saying.

12 Am I incorrect there?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. What are you intending to answer

15 there?

16 A. I'm doing two things at the same

17 time. I am talking about glyphosate, the generic,

18 and I am responding to his question about how a

19 specific commercial vendor might set up their own

20 guidelines.

21 Q. But you don't --

22 A. But I am not confirming that Roundup

 

 

 

 


47

 

 

 

 

 

1 is what is being used in Columbia.

2 Q. For purposes of our going to the

3 court and trying to get a court order, the issue

4 you are claiming national security on here is

5 whether or not this glyphosate that you are

6 spraying --

7 MR. GALLAGHER: Glyphosate.

8 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: We all know what we

9 mean.

10 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

11 Q. -- is in fact Roundup?

12 A. We are not acknowledging the name of

13 the supplier.

14 Q. That is a national security secret?

15 A. Counsel made the objections.

16 MR. RIVERA: Again, it's information

17 protected by one of the governmental privileges

18 including information submitted to the government

19 on a pledge of confidentiality, as well as the law

20 enforcement privilege and possibility the national

21 security privilege.

22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

 

 

 

 


48

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. But we can say that glyphosate is

2 one of the chemicals?

3 A. We can certainly talk about

4 glyphosate.

5 Q. Are there any other chemicals that

6 are added to the mixture that is being used in Plan

7 Columbia besides glyphosate?

8 A. When one speaks of glyphosate as the

9 generic active agent that is used to actually

10 affect the plan, there are another set of chemicals

11 which are included, and they are called

12 surfactants. Their purpose is to allow the

13 glyphosate to remain on the leave long enough to

14 have its active effect on the plant. It is like

15 baby shampoo.

16 Q. Is one of the ingredients that

17 you're describing called Cosmo-Flux?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. Is Cosmo-Flux part of the mixture

20 that is being used in Plan Columbia?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. Is another one something called

 

 

 

 


49

 

 

 

 

 

1 Poea, P-o-e-a?

2 A. I believe that is the correct name.

3 Q. What is the difference, as you sit

4 here, between Cosmo-Flux and Poea?

5 A. They're produced by different

6 manufacturers.

7 Q. But they do the same thing?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Which of them is being used in Plan

10 Columbia?

11 A. Both.

12 Q. Together?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Why would you need two of them?

15 A. Because in the commercially

16 available mixture which we purchase, the second of

17 the two surfactants is already an ingredient of the

18 mixture which we purchase. We add the Cosmo-Flux

19 in addition to that to have an additional

20 surfactant effect.

21 Q. Where is the Cosmo-Flux that you are

22 adding manufactured?

 

 

 

 


50

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. Do you know the name of the company

3 that manufacturers it?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Has the company that is supplying

6 it, the Cosmo-Flux that is being used in Plan

7 Columbia, has the company changed from the

8 beginning of the program until now?

9 A. That supplies the Cosmo-Flux?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. I don't know.

12 Q. Let me direct your attention to

13 page 3. About halfway down the page it says,

14 Mr. Beers: "There is no question that at certain

15 dosage levels, glyphosate or the commercial mixture

16 can injure people or kill them. What I'm trying to

17 say is that the levels that we apply are well below

18 any of those levels."

19 Did you, in fact, say that?

20 A. I did.

21 Q. What are the dimensions or factors

22 in your mind that would determine whether a certain

 

 

 

 


51

 

 

 

 

 

1 dosage level would kill someone?

2 A. The science, as I understand it, is

3 that the dosage level would have to be a

4 considerable degree greater than the very small

5 amount of dosage that a single flight would allow

6 to land on an individual.

7 The actual mixture of either

8 glyphosate or surfactant which would fall on an

9 individual, a naked person of approximately

10 150 pounds standing in a field, which would never

11 happen, would have approximately 12 milligrams of

12 the total amount of substance. Nine plus

13 milligrams would be glyphosate, the remaining 2

14 plus milligrams would be surfactant.

15 That's hardly anything,

16 approximating what the standard tests have

17 suggested would be the dosage level for glyphosate

18 and its surfactant as manufactured in the United

19 States and testing would be.

20 Q. Is there any process under which

21 someone is testing what is actually being sprayed,

22 the content of it?

 

 

 

 


52

 

 

 

 

 

1 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: I object to the form

2 of that. It's unclear to me.

3 THE WITNESS: Nor me.

4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm sorry, I'll try

5 again.

6 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

7 Q. You're getting this fumigant and

8 spraying it. Is anyone testing the actual chemical

9 compound that is being sprayed on some sort of

10 random basis to make sure that we're clear on what

11 it is made of?

12 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.

13 THE WITNESS: I have indicated that

14 products which are manufactured and sold in the

15 United States are tested regularly. That's the

16 test data we have.

17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

18 Q. Is anyone using commercially in the

19 United States the exact same chemical formulation

20 with the addition of these two surfactants that

21 you've described in testing it?

22 A. Cosmo-Flux is not sold within the

 

 

 

 


53

 

 

 

 

 

1 United States.

2 Q. When you say that the people who are

3 testing it in the United States, that would be

4 irrelevant to whether the chemical as used is the

5 same, right?

6 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of the

7 question.

8 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Objection.

9 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

10 Q. Everyone objected to the form of the

11 question, but the issue is whether you understood

12 the question.

13 MR. RIVERA: If you understand the

14 question, you may answer subject to the objection.

15 THE WITNESS: As to the matter of the

16 irrelevance of the test that has been done in the

17 United States, I believe it is relevant to the

18 matter at hand.

19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

20 Q. Why is that?

21 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, Counsel. I'm

22 going back and flipping through Mr. Beers'

 

 

 

 


54

 

 

 

 

 

1 Declaration, and it seems that we're going a bit

2 far afield from what he was supposed to be

3 testifying to today. Obviously, we've been giving

4 some latitude to talk somewhat about the herbicide.

5 But my understanding of his authorization and the

6 request for his testimony today really concerns the

7 policy position of the State Department and various

8 aspects of the impact of this litigation on

9 national security and other concerns that are

10 described in the Declaration rather than the

11 science or the health effects, for the most part,

12 of the herbicide.

13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm going to direct

14 you to paragraphs 22 and 23 of Mr. Beers'

15 Declaration, both of which involve his assertions

16 that there are no grounds to suggest concern for

17 human health. I believe that my questions are

18 extremely relevant there, and I have just a few

19 more which I would like to complete.

20 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

21 Q. You were beginning to explain to me

22 the relevance of the testing that is done on one

 

 

 

 


55

 

 

 

 

 

1 compound to the actual health effects of the

2 compound being used in Columbia which is different.

3 Why did you say that it was

4 relevant?

5 A. When you get to the actual mixture

6 that is being sprayed in Columbia, that is when it

7 is mixed with the water, which is the largest

8 single content of the mixture, the glyphosate and

9 the surfactant that comes with the glyphosate

10 represent a certain proportion which is the bulk of

11 the combination, and 1 percent of the actual out

12 the nozzle of the spray is Cosmo-Flux.

13 We have, because it is not sold in

14 the United States, asked EPA to look at the

15 ingredients as provided on a proprietary basis by

16 the manufacturer. And EPA has, after looking at

17 the contents, judged the contents of Cosmo-Flux as

18 safe to be sprayed on food crops in the United

19 States.

20 That, in combination with the

21 testing against the commercially available products

22 which are comparable to what we use, gives us the

 

 

 

 


56

 

 

 

 

 

1 view that is contained in the statement.

2 Q. Is it true that no one has actually

3 tested on humans the specific compounds together

4 that are being used in Plan Columbia?

5 A. To the best of my knowledge, no one

6 tests on humans or any of the herbicides or

7 pesticides. They are all done on animals.

8 Q. Are you aware of any scientific

9 tests done on animals to test the effects of the

10 specific combination of compounds being sprayed in

11 Plan Columbia?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Are there any plans to do such a

14 test?

15 A. We are considering the possibility.

16 Q. Who would conduct the test that you

17 are considering?

18 A. I don't know.

19 Q. Are you working with the EPA on

20 that?

21 A. The EPA would certainly be involved.

22 Q. Are you familiar with any legal

 

 

 

 


57

 

 

 

 

 

1 requirement under the Executive Order 12114 to test

2 these materials prior to using them in a context

3 that might harm humans?

4 A. I'm not familiar with that executive

5 order and would need to review it before I could

6 answer your question.

7 Q. Are you aware of any discussions

8 that have occurred in your bureau about the need to

9 conduct an environmental impact study?

10 MR. RIVERA: I'm going to object to the

11 question to the extent it requires the witness to

12 reveal any information that would be protected by

13 the deliberative process or any other applicable

14 privilege.

15 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

16 Q. I believe you can answer the

17 question without giving up the details that counsel

18 has enumerated.

19 MR. RIVERA: If you understand the

20 question.

21 THE WITNESS: I guess you're going to

22 have to reformulate the question.

 

 

 

 


58

 

 

 

 

 

1 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

2 Q. Have there been any discussions

3 inside your bureau regarding the need to comply

4 with environmental regulations by testing the

5 impact of the compound that you are spraying in

6 Columbia?

7 MR. RIVERA: Just a question of

8 clarification. The impact on the environment?

9 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: No. Humans or the

10 environment.

11 MR. RIVERA: I thought I heard

12 environment somewhere in your qualifications.

13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Humans are existing

14 in the environment.

15 MR. RIVERA: That's helpful to be clear

16 on the question.

17 THE WITNESS: At this particular point in

18 time, I am not aware of any specific plans to do

19 any environmental impact study of this particular

20 spray compound.

21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

22 Q. You're not familiar with Executive

 

 

 

 


59

 

 

 

 

 

1 Order 12114?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Are you aware of whether there are

4 any laws in Columbia that would require an

5 environmental impact study to be done before you

6 could spray something like the fumigant you are

7 using?

8 A. I'm not specifically aware of any,

9 no.

10 Q. Are you aware of any discussions

11 about whether the program is in compliance with the

12 law in Columbia on that dimension?

13 A. Yes. It is my understanding that it

14 is in compliance with the law in Columbia.

15 Q. Does the fumigant that you are using

16 in Columbia kill food crops like corn, yucca, et

17 cetera?

18 A. It kills plants.

19 Q. So if a farmer's plants were sprayed

20 by this fumigant, it would kill them, just as it is

21 killing the cocaine?

22 A. It could.

 

 

 

 


60

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. There is no way that this fumigant

2 distinguishes between cocaine and corn. It kills

3 plants; is that correct?

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. You had earlier said that the dosage

6 is low enough that it cannot hurt humans in terms

7 of the spray that you are using in Columbia,

8 correct?

9 A. I said that it is not significant

10 enough to kill humans.

11 Q. Could it injure humans?

12 A. The studies that have been done on

13 glyphosate have suggested that there is a mild eye

14 irritation that results.

15 Q. Are you aware of any other health

16 effects just from the glyphosate?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Again, that study did not introduce

19 the Cosmo-Flux; is that correct?

20 A. But it did have the surfactant that

21 is part of the glyphosate mixture.

22 Q. Which surfactant, what is the word?

 

 

 

 


61

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. The other one, the Bpoe.

2 Q. Would someone increase their chances

3 of suffering an injury if they are sprayed

4 frequently? Is frequency a factor in your

5 determination?

6 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, I object to the

7 form of the question.

8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

9 Q. I will be happy to try again if you

10 don't understand it, Mr. Beers.

11 A. There is a second set of studies

12 that are done on most herbicides, and they are

13 exposure -- prolonged exposure to the substance.

14 It is my understanding that those studies are

15 conducted over a 90-day period, and they presume a

16 certain dosage level administered on a daily basis.

17 Those studies with respect to

18 glyphosate do not suggest a long-term effect.

19 However, and more importantly, it is unlikely that

20 an individual would be sprayed more than once. It

21 is highly unlikely that an individual would ever be

22 sprayed more than twice, period.

 

 

 

 


62

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. But that would be a factor if in

2 fact they were? In increasing the risk to a

3 person, the dosage is one factor, but the frequency

4 is another factor?

5 A. That's what I said.

6 Q. Are you aware of any rules or

7 recommendations by the commercial manufacturers of

8 this kind of fumigant that you are using in

9 Columbia dealing with the altitude from which it

10 should be sprayed?

11 A. I believe there are some references

12 in the guidelines.

13 Q. Do you have any knowledge of what

14 those guidelines are? Should it be sprayed very

15 high up or close to the ground?

16 A. It should be sprayed close to the

17 ground.

18 Q. How close to the ground?

19 A. I don't remember precisely, but the

20 guidelines say.

21 Q. Do you believe, as you sit here,

22 that the DynCorp program in Columbia is in

 

 

 

 


63

 

 

 

 

 

1 compliance with those guidelines in terms of

2 altitude?

3 MR. RIVERA: Object to the question.

4 Could you clarify, whose guidelines?

5 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

6 Q. The guidelines that you referred to

7 that the commercial manufacturers recommend.

8 A. As I cannot remember what the

9 commercial guidelines are, I'm at odds to respond

10 to your question.

11 Q. Is it part of the direction that the

12 bureau is giving DynCorp to be in compliance with

13 the commercially-recommended applications of the

14 fumigant?

15 A. We have our own guidelines.

16 Q. Are they different in terms of the

17 altitude recommendation than the commercial

18 guidelines?

19 A. Our guidelines are 50 to 150 feet.

20 Q. What are the commercial --

21 A. I don't know.

22 Q. Do the commercial vendors put a

 

 

 

 


64

 

 

 

 

 

1 warning label on the fumigant if it has glyphosate

2 in it?

3 A. I believe so.

4 Q. Does the warning include telling

5 humans to be out of the area?

6 A. I'm not positive about that.

7 Q. Let's go back to your 60 Minutes

8 transcript, page 2. You are specifically asked the

9 question near the top of the page by Mr. Croft that

10 the commercial Roundup says that people should stay

11 out of area, as well as pets, if the area is being

12 sprayed, and you respond to the question.

13 Do you have any knowledge at all of

14 the commercial regulations?

15 A. I'm sorry, I still don't see it on

16 the page.

17 Q. Page 2, the second question

18 Mr. Croft asks you, it begins, "If you looked at

19 the --

20 A. Okay, got it.

21 Q. Could you review both the question

22 and your response.

 

 

 

 


65

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. (Examining.)

2 Q. Do you have any knowledge of the

3 commercial warning that Roundup is using?

4 A. Mr. Croft, I believe, is correct in

5 quoting the Roundup web site.

6 I have never said we're using

7 Roundup, sir.

8 Q. Is it your position that it is okay,

9 that you would not warn people to be out of the

10 area when you're about to spray the actual fumigant

11 that you're using in Columbia?

12 A. We do not warn people to be out of

13 the area when we are spraying.

14 Q. Because it's perfectly safe to be

15 sprayed?

16 A. It is also a risk.

17 Q. Could you acknowledge the first part

18 of the question, though.

19 Is it your position that it is

20 perfectly safe to be sprayed by the actual fumigant

21 that you are using in Columbia?

22 A. As I have said earlier, there are

 

 

 

 


66

 

 

 

 

 

1 testing indications that it could be mildly

2 irritating to the eye. If you judge that to be

3 unsafe, then I'm not in a position to say it's

4 safe. We do not judge it to be harmful to the

5 health of individuals.

6 Q. You also say on that same page that

7 you compare it to table salt, is that correct, on

8 the level of toxicity?

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. Are you aware that the New York

11 Attorney General in 1996 got an injunction against

12 Monsanto for saying that glyphosate is as safe as

13 table salt because it was proved to be untrue?

14 A. No, I'm unaware of that.

15 Q. What do you base your statement on

16 that it is as safe as table salt?

17 A. Information that has been provided

18 to us in comparing the toxicity levels, which are

19 done by independent testers to determine what the

20 toxicity of table salt or baby shampoo is. So I'm

21 looking at test results. We are looking at test

22 results.

 

 

 

 


67

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. But you said the specific compound

2 that you are using has not been tested on humans;

3 is that correct?

4 A. That's correct. Nor are any of the

5 tests, to the best of my knowledge, on humans.

6 Q. What date are you referring to?

7 A. I'm referring to the standard tests

8 that EPA sets up to look at toxicity levels of

9 substances.

10 Q. As part of the bureau's oversight in

11 coordination with DynCorp, is there any attempt to

12 try to spray areas when populations are not likely

13 to be there?

14 A. Sure.

15 Q. What kinds of guidelines are you

16 providing?

17 A. The general guideline, which is to

18 not spray people if it is at all avoidable, to not

19 spray houses, to not spray fields that are clearly

20 food crop fields. But if food crop is intercropped

21 with coca, then it is coca.

22 Q. Are these guidelines in a written

 

 

 

 


68

 

 

 

 

 

1 form, or are they part of the contract?

2 A. I'm not sure.

3 Q. But you are sure that that is one of

4 the factors in entering into this coordination with

5 DynCorp?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Do you know if the pilots themselves

8 are instructed as to the possible risks of spraying

9 humans?

10 A. I don't know that for a fact.

11 Q. Do you know if the containers for

12 the fumigant that you are using contain warning

13 labels of any sort?

14 A. I don't know that.

15 Q. Should they, according to your

16 understanding of the safety precautions?

17 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of the

18 question. You're asking him should the --

19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

20 Q. Is there any regulation, guideline

21 or requirement of the contract or any other

22 direction that your bureau has given to DynCorp to

 

 

 

 


69

 

 

 

 

 

1 say that the barrel storing this material for use

2 must have a warning label as to its possible

3 negative health effects?

4 A. I don't know.

5 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Let's mark this as

6 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6.

7 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 6

8 was marked for identification.)

9 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

10 Q. Mr. Beers, I've handed you

11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6, which is a report on the

12 study of health complaints in Columbia related to

13 aerial eradication. This was produced to me by

14 Mr. Gallagher, and it's on the list that I showed

15 you earlier of the documents produced. I believe

16 you said that you had not reviewed any of the

17 documents.

18 So my question is simply have you

19 ever reviewed this particular report?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. In what context?

22 A. It was information that had been

 

 

 

 


70

 

 

 

 

 

1 produced by the embassy concerning health effects

2 that was of interest to me. I read it.

3 Q. What conclusion, if any, did you

4 draw from this report regarding the risk to humans

5 being sprayed with the fumigant that you are using

6 in Columbia?

7 A. That this report did not provide a

8 conclusion that would suggest that there is a risk

9 to humans.

10 Q. Did it prove the opposite, though,

11 in your mind that there is no risk to humans?

12 A. No.

13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I have another report

14 that we're going to call Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7.

15 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 7

16 was marked for identification.)

17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

18 Q. Have you ever seen this report

19 before?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did you have a role in drafting it?

22 A. No.

 

 

 

 


71

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. Did you have a review role?

2 A. Not in the chain of its

3 finalization, no.

4 Q. In what sense did you?

5 A. I read it in conjunction with my

6 work. I looked at it as it was being prepared. I

7 did not personally sign off on this document when

8 it went forward.

9 Q. The pages aren't numbered, but if

10 you take the second to last page, the second new

11 paragraph, "Human dietary exposures and risks are

12 minimal. Exposure to workers," et cetera.

13 Do you know what studies, if any,

14 that is based on?

15 A. There are, as I said earlier, a

16 series of studies which have been done with

17 respect, on the one hand, to the specific testing

18 for toxicity and long-term effects on individuals?

19 There have been other studies which

20 use that information and other information that

21 reach the conclusions of the first sentence,

22 including studies that were done by the United

 

 

 

 


72

 

 

 

 

 

1 Nations.

2 Q. Is it your understanding that this

3 particular paragraph I have pointed to you, if you

4 look at the paragraph above and below it, there's a

5 reference to the word "glyphosate".

6 Is it your understanding that these

7 studies were limited to glyphosate?

8 A. And its normally included

9 surfactants.

10 Q. But not the mixture that you're

11 using in Columbia?

12 A. It did not include reference to any

13 Cosmo-Flux, to the best of my knowledge.

14 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I have one more

15 document that we will call Plaintiffs' Number 8.

16 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 8

17 was marked for identification.)

18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

19 Q. Have you ever seen this before,

20 Mr. Beers?

21 A. I certainly have seen something that

22 is very similar to it. What doesn't -- what I

 

 

 

 


73

 

 

 

 

 

1 don't remember is a document that began with these

2 questions. I remember a document very much like

3 this, if not the same thing, which included

4 questions and answers like these.

5 Q. The document that you're referring

6 to, was it still focused on the program in

7 Columbia?

8 A. Yes, and it was produced by the

9 Narcotics Affairs Section.

10 Q. Do you know who in the Narcotics

11 Affairs Section produced the document you recall,

12 whether or not it was this one?

13 A. I believe the individual in question

14 would have been Suzanne Shelton.

15 Q. What is her position?

16 A. She is a member of the Narcotics

17 Affairs Section.

18 Q. Is she a scientist?

19 A. No.

20 Q. What is her background?

21 A. She's a lawyer.

22 Q. On that note, Mr. Beers, your

 

 

 

 


74

 

 

 

 

 

1 background is history; is that correct?

2 A. I have a rather eclectic background.

3 But, yes, that's my academic training.

4 Q. But you're not a chemist or a

5 biologist?

6 A. I am not a scientist.

7 Q. Are you aware of any studies that

8 have tested just glyphosate for damage from

9 inhalation on humans?

10 A. Not that I remember. However --

11 excuse me -- the standard test includes inhalation.

12 Q. The standard test?

13 A. Dermatology, inhalation, eye

14 irritation and a fourth category.

15 Q. What is the fourth category?

16 A. I don't remember.

17 Q. When you say standard test though,

18 again you're referring to the tests on the

19 commercial products here in the United States?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. Mr. Beers, the area of Columbia, the

22 width of which you have not told me but that we

 

 

 

 


75

 

 

 

 

 

1 have called the no-spray zone, is there any

2 alternative being used there to eradicate the coca

3 plants?

4 A. No, not to my knowledge.

5 Q. I'm not under oath, but I'm going to

6 tell you truthfully that my 7-year-old and I were

7 sort of discussing this case, and he suggested that

8 hand picking -- his name is Alexander -- seems to

9 be a logical thing to do, that people wouldn't be

10 hurt and they could actually find the real plants

11 that they're looking for.

12 Has that option been explored at all

13 by your bureau?

14 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the form of

15 the question to the extent that it requires

16 divulging any classified or otherwise protected

17 information. Otherwise, you may answer.

18 THE WITNESS: We use manual eradication

19 in other countries. The governments, excuse me, of

20 those countries use manual eradiation. Peru and

21 Bolivia, to be specific, in the Andean region.

22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

 

 

 

 


76

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. Why is it not being used in

2 Columbia?

3 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

4 THE WITNESS: The volume of the coca, the

5 security considerations to put people on the

6 ground.

7 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

8 Q. I would like to take about a

9 five-minute break. We're close to wrapping up.

10 (A brief recess was taken.)

11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

12 Q. Thank you for your indulgence,

13 Mr. Beers. I'm just about done here.

14 Have you heard of any studies,

15 particularly in California, where students have

16 reported negative health effects from the spraying

17 of the fumigant known as Roundup?

18 A. No, I can't say that I have.

19 Q. If we look at Exhibits 6, 7 and 8,

20 the three studies that were produced by

21 Mr. Gallagher to me -- I'll be very careful with

22 the question, and you'll probably be instructed to

 

 

 

 


77

 

 

 

 

 

1 be very careful with the answer -- I'm not asking

2 you for anything, other than whether you can tell

3 me if there are other studies that you're aware of

4 that show any negative effects of the fumigant that

5 you are using in Columbia?

6 A. I know of no studies that show a

7 negative effect of the fumigant that we are using

8 in Columbia.

9 Q. Do you know of any studies, other

10 than these three that are Exhibit 6 through 8, that

11 show that it does not hurt anyone to spray the

12 fumigant that you are using in Columbia, that are

13 specific to that fumigant?

14 MR. RIVERA: If I can just clarify the

15 question, you're asking for State Department

16 information or studies that are reflected in State

17 Department materials as opposed to EPA or anyone

18 else?

19 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Any study.

20 THE WITNESS: Relevant to Columbia?

21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

22 Q. Yes.

 

 

 

 


78

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. There is another study which I have

2 not seen the final version of it -- although, it

3 may now exist -- which was similar to the Aponte

4 study, a different area and a larger group.

5 Q. Do you know who is conducting that

6 study?

7 A. I believe it is the same group of

8 people.

9 Q. That did?

10 A. The Aponte study.

11 Q. Was any study done dealing with the

12 fumigant that you are using in Columbia on Patrick

13 Air Force Base?

14 A. I'm not aware of one.

15 Q. Who trains the DynCorp pilots that

16 are operating in Columbia?

17 A. The DynCorp pilots that are

18 operating in Columbia are provided through a

19 subcontractor, East Corporation. The Air Wing and

20 DynCorp together have a pilot training program. I

21 can't say in any individual instance who

22 specifically trained that pilot on this mission.

 

 

 

 


79

 

 

 

 

 

1 They are all experienced pilots.

2 Q. But your wing division does some

3 training in Columbia?

4 A. Or in Patrick.

5 Q. For people that would be going down

6 to Columbia?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. You said the Columbian government

9 could stop a particular fumigation flight if the

10 wind was to great?

11 A. Right.

12 Q. Are there any other --

13 A. Or any other reason. They could

14 stop it, period.

15 MR. RIVERA: Let me instruct the witness

16 to let Mr. Collingsworth finish his question.

17 THE WITNESS: Sorry.

18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

19 Q. Are you aware of any other reasons

20 that in fact have been used to stop a flight, other

21 than weather, by the Columbian government?

22 A. You're including wind within the

 

 

 

 


80

 

 

 

 

 

1 weather question?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. Yes, I am.

4 Q. What was the reason or reasons?

5 A. The government of Columbia stopped

6 spraying in Putumayo on approximately the 5th of

7 February of the year 2001 because they wanted to

8 end spraying in Putumayo at that time to see what

9 would happen with respect to the local campesino

10 signing up for alternative development.

11 Q. Was it resumed?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Any other reasons you're aware of

14 why the Columbian government stopped the spraying?

15 MR. RIVERA: Stopped the spraying in

16 Putumayo?

17 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: In Columbia.

18 MR. RIVERA: Ever?

19 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Yes.

20 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not.

21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

22 Q. Could your bureau stop a particular

 

 

 

 


81

 

 

 

 

 

1 spray run for any reason?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What would the reasons be that your

4 bureau would be authorized to stop a particular

5 fumigation run in Columbia?

6 A. In the judgment of the people who

7 were involved, the spraying conditions were such

8 that it was inappropriate, assuming that the

9 Columbian government hadn't on its on recognizance

10 stopped that or for other considerations which

11 might be political.

12 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm handing you an

13 exhibit that we're going to mark as Plaintiffs'

14 Number 9.

15 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 9

16 was marked for identification.)

17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

18 Q. Mr. Beers, I've handed you a

19 Declaration signed by a Salvador Quishpe, who is

20 the political director of an organization called

21 Conaie.

22 Do you know that organization? Have

 

 

 

 


82

 

 

 

 

 

1 you heard of them before?

2 A. I'm not sure.

3 Q. I would direct your attention to

4 paragraph number 5, the last paragraph.

5 A. (Witness complies.)

6 Q. If you could read that paragraph.

7 MR. RIVERA: Can Mr. Beers have a minute

8 to read the entire document?

9 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Sure.

10 MR. RIVERA: Thank you.

11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

12 Q. Have you had a chance to review

13 paragraph number five?

14 A. I have.

15 Q. In paragraph number five, the

16 declarant is questioning the foreign policy

17 objectives of the United States government.

18 And my question to you is, is a

19 factor of your foreign policy considerations that

20 are enumerated throughout your own Declaration

21 trying to maintain good relations with the local

22 populations who are not drug traffickers and who

 

 

 

 


83

 

 

 

 

 

1 are not terrorists?

2 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, the local

3 population in Columbia?

4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: And Ecuador.

5 THE WITNESS: It is not the policy of the

6 United States to drive people away from the United

7 States.

8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

9 Q. Have you ever sent or directed

10 anyone to go to Ecuador to specifically investigate

11 whether there are effects that would be visible

12 that would be consistent with the claim that the

13 fumigation has occurred in Ecuador?

14 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the extent

15 that it calls for a revealing any classified or

16 other national security protected information.

17 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.

18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

19 Q. Are there any plans to do that?

20 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

21 THE WITNESS: Not at present.

22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

 

 

 

 


84

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. Are you aware of any study done by

2 anyone that would indicate to your satisfaction

3 that there is no harm done in Ecuador that would be

4 consistent with fumigation?

5 A. We have looked into the allegations,

6 and we have found no evidence that spraying was

7 done in Ecuador or that spray drifted into Ecuador.

8 Q. But you have said that you didn't

9 send anyone to Ecuador to do that.

10 How did you accomplish that?

11 A. We know where the planes are.

12 Q. So based on your knowledge of where

13 the planes actually flew?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. What evidence do you have of the

16 plane flight paths that would to you demonstrate

17 that it is impossible that they sprayed in Ecuador?

18 A. Almost all planes and one plane on

19 every flight of planes is equipped with a location

20 system which tells us where the plane is.

21 Q. What is the closest, as you sit here

22 today, that you're aware of a plane that was

 

 

 

 


85

 

 

 

 

 

1 spraying under Plan Columbia came to the border

2 with Ecuador ever in the history of Plan Columbia?

3 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the question

4 to the extent that it calls for revealing any

5 classified State secret information.

6 THE WITNESS: I'm not in a position to

7 answer that question.

8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

9 Q. Do you know the answer to it and

10 you're not answering because --

11 A. No, I don't know the answer to the

12 question.

13 Q. Who would know the answer to that

14 question on your staff? Is there someone who is

15 particularly --

16 A. Officials in the Air Wing.

17 Q. Is there one particular official who

18 would be most likely to have that information?

19 A. I'm not sure.

20 Q. Do you have some options for me?

21 A. Mr. Etheridge.

22 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Mr. Beers, that

 

 

 

 


86

 

 

 

 

 

1 concludes my questions. Thank you very much.

2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

3 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Does anyone else have

4 anything?

5 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: No questions.

6 (Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the deposition

7 of RAND BEERS was concluded.)

8 * * * * *

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 

 

 

 


87

 

 

 

 

 

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )

3

4 I, RAND BEERS, the witness herein, having

5 read the foregoing testimony of the pages of this

6 deposition do hereby certify it to be a true and

7 correct transcript, subject to the corrections, if

8 any, shown on the attached page.

9

10

11 ________________________

12 RAND BEERS

13

14 Subscribed and sworn to before me

15 this ______day of____________, 2002.

16 __________________________________.

17

18

19

20

21

22

 

 

 

 


88

 

 

 

 

 

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )

3

4 I, SHIRLEY S. MITCHELL, Notary Public

5 within and for the District of Columbia, do hereby

6 certify:

7 That the witness whose deposition is

8 hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn and that the

9 within transcript is a true record of the testimony

10 given by such witness.

11 I further certify that I am not related

12 to any of the parties to this action by blood or

13 marriage and that I am in no way interested in the

14 outcome of this matter.

15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set

16 my hand this _______day of __________, 2002.

17

18

19 __________________________

20 My Commission Expires:

21 March 31, 2005

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


36

 

 

 

 

 

1 be hiding or based in Sucumbios, Ecuador?

2 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

3 THE WITNESS: There is general

4 information that the BART from time to time has

5 some of its elements within Ecuador.

6 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

7 Q. Within Sucumbios, Ecuador?

8 A. Within Sucumbios.

9 Q. I don't speak Spanish. I'll do my

10 best.

11 A. Nor do I.

12 Q. I would like to direct your

13 attention to paragraph 25 of your Declaration.

14 It begins, "As directed by the

15 bureau, DynCorp International works directly with

16 the United States military," et cetera, et cetera.

17 Who within the Bureau would be the

18 person you're referring to, or persons, who are

19 directing DynCorp?

20 A. It would be me and through me the

21 office director of the State Department Air Wing,

22 Mr. John McLaughlin, and through him his

 

 

 

 


37

 

 

 

 

 

1 representatives in Columbia, and in a second chain

2 of command from the embassador through the

3 Narcotics Affairs Section within Columbia.

4 Q. Mr. Baca, does he work in

5 Narcotics --

6 A. He is the director.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. RIVERA: Make sure that counsel

9 finishes his question before you answer.

10 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

12 Q. How frequent are the interactions in

13 that chain you have just described between DynCorp

14 and the bureau? Is it a daily thing or a weekly

15 thing?

16 A. It is a constant relationship. It

17 is daily and hour to hour. They live and work

18 together.

19 Q. I understand the limitations on what

20 you can say here, but what are the general issues

21 that are being worked out on a day-to-day basis in

22 this relationship? Is it where to spray? Is it

 

 

 

 


38

 

 

 

 

 

1 what to spray? What are the general issues?

2 A. Logistics.

3 Q. What do you mean by that?

4 A. I mean the support for the aircraft

5 and associated material, gasoline, spray material

6 that are necessary for DynCorp to carry out its

7 function.

8 Q. In the next paragraph, paragraph 26

9 of your Declaration, you describe a process to

10 develop detailed flight plans.

11 Can you tell me how that works?

12 A. The government of Columbia with the

13 support of the United States determines where coca

14 cultivation exists with a degree of geographic

15 precision that allows a specific field to be

16 designated as a field to be sprayed.

17 The general geographic area and then

18 the fields themselves are determined with the final

19 responsibility for saying that those areas may be

20 sprayed residing with the government of Columbia.

21 The flight plans are then laid out

22 for a particular day to cover the fields from among

 

 

 

 


39

 

 

 

 

 

1 the list of fields which will be sprayed on that

2 day and by that flight. Prior to the take off of

3 the aircraft, the government of Columbia determines

4 whether or not the weather or wind conditions are

5 appropriate to being able to deliver the spray

6 effectively to the target selected and only if the

7 weather and wind are appropriate, it's not raining,

8 the wind is not above a certain velocity. The

9 aircraft are authorized to take off. They then

10 take off and return to base.

11 If an unusual condition results

12 during the course of the flight, then the pilot has

13 the authority to return to base on his own

14 recognizance. The planes that fly are a

15 combination of planes that are flown by DynCorp and

16 flown by the Columbian National Police.

17 Q. When you were speaking earlier about

18 the logistics and the interaction between the

19 bureau and DynCorp, is the government of Columbia

20 involved in those logistical coordination

21 activities as well?

22 A. Only insofar as it may involve a

 

 

 

 


40

 

 

 

 

 

1 flight clearance to move something from point A to

2 point B. We are responsible for supplying our own

3 DynCorp logistical back up.

4 Q. Is a computer program prepared based

5 on the aerial intelligence that is guiding the

6 spray pattern of the airplane?

7 A. There is a program set which is used

8 to guide it, yes, that's correct.

9 Q. How is that created?

10 A. It's created in the -- as a result

11 of some multispectral imagery, which is taken from

12 an aircraft which is flown by us. Not every field

13 which is sprayed is necessarily registered on that,

14 but most of the fields which are sprayed are

15 registered on that.

16 Q. Who creates the computer program in

17 cases where there is one?

18 A. It would be a, I believe,

19 subcontractor of DynCorp.

20 Q. A subcontractor of DynCorp.

21 Do you know the name of the

22 subcontractor?

 

 

 

 


41

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. I don't recall off the top of my

2 head.

3 Q. Do you know where that computer

4 program is created physically? Is it created in

5 Columbia, or is it created somewhere in the United

6 States?

7 A. I believe it's in Columbia.

8 Q. Do you know the lag time between

9 gathering the information and actually having the

10 computer program ready to be operational?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Do your flight plans take account of

13 the issue of drift?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. How do they do that?

16 A. As I said earlier, they are not

17 allowed to fly if the wind is too great.

18 Q. Is that the only precaution taken?

19 A. Pilots can make a decision in

20 flight.

21 Q. Are you aware of any studies

22 conducted regarding the issue of drift with respect

 

 

 

 


42

 

 

 

 

 

1 to Roundup, the fumigant base that is being used in

2 Plan Columbia?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Are you aware that there are any

5 studies?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Do you know what kind of spray was

8 initially being used when Plan Columbia first

9 began?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Do you know what kind of spray is

12 being used now?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Is it a derivative of Roundup?

15 A. I am not at liberty to say.

16 Q. I'm sorry?

17 A. I am not at liberty to say.

18 Q. Is that a national security secret

19 what the actual spray is?

20 MR. RIVERA: I'm going to object to the

21 question on the grounds that the identity of the

22 particular spray would be protected by a privilege

 

 

 

 


43

 

 

 

 

 

1 concerning another national security law

2 enforcement privilege or the privilege for

3 information submitted upon a pledge of

4 confidentiality with the government.

5 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection, also

6 based on the contract.

7 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: We're going to mark

8 that one because I don't believe that you will be

9 able to keep us from knowing what is the name of

10 the spray being used.

11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

12 Q. Is it a derivative of Roundup?

13 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

14 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.

15 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

16 Q. What company makes it?

17 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

18 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.

19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

20 Q. Has the spray changed?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. When did it change?

 

 

 

 


44

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. Why was it changed?

3 A. I'm not sure.

4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Let's mark this as

5 Plaintiffs' Number 5.

6 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 5

7 was marked for identification.)

8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

9 Q. I've handed you Exhibit 5, which is

10 a transcript of your famous appearance on

11 60 Minutes. I'm wondering if you could take a

12 moment to review that and tell me if it accurately

13 reflects what you said.

14 MR. RIVERA: Do you want the witness to

15 read the entirety of the transcript, or are there

16 particular portions that you would like him to look

17 at?

18 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: It's not that long.

19 He can read the portions that he did actually say.

20 MR. RIVERA: Read through it and make

21 sure you're comfortable with what you have read.

22 THE WITNESS: (Witness complies.)

 

 

 

 


45

 

 

 

 

 

1 Those are all my words to the best of my

2 recollection.

3 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

4 Q. Mr. Beers, on page 3 of this

5 document near the top, it's your first appearance,

6 I think, Mr. Rand Beers: "That's correct. By

7 comparison, table salt and baby shampoo are more

8 toxic or as toxic as glyphosate."

9 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, what page are you

10 on?

11 THE WITNESS: We haven't found the point

12 you're making.

13 It's on page 2 of mine.

14 MR. RIVERA: Let's make sure we're on the

15 same page, literally.

16 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Yes, my pages somehow

17 are different. Sorry.

18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

19 Q. On page 2 at the top, you are quoted

20 as saying, "That's correct. By comparison, table

21 salt and baby shampoo are more toxic or as toxic as

22 glyphosate."

 

 

 

 


46

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. Glyphosate.

2 Q. Is glyphosate one of the chemicals

3 being sprayed in Columbia?

4 A. Glyphosate is the generic name of

5 the chemicals that are being sprayed in Columbia.

6 Q. In the next set of questions,

7 Mr. Croft asks you about Roundup. There, you don't

8 claim any kind of national security privilege, and

9 instead you answer the questions about the

10 commercial applicability of Roundup. That's what

11 it appears to be saying.

12 Am I incorrect there?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. What are you intending to answer

15 there?

16 A. I'm doing two things at the same

17 time. I am talking about glyphosate, the generic,

18 and I am responding to his question about how a

19 specific commercial vendor might set up their own

20 guidelines.

21 Q. But you don't --

22 A. But I am not confirming that Roundup

 

 

 

 


47

 

 

 

 

 

1 is what is being used in Columbia.

2 Q. For purposes of our going to the

3 court and trying to get a court order, the issue

4 you are claiming national security on here is

5 whether or not this glyphosate that you are

6 spraying --

7 MR. GALLAGHER: Glyphosate.

8 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: We all know what we

9 mean.

10 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

11 Q. -- is in fact Roundup?

12 A. We are not acknowledging the name of

13 the supplier.

14 Q. That is a national security secret?

15 A. Counsel made the objections.

16 MR. RIVERA: Again, it's information

17 protected by one of the governmental privileges

18 including information submitted to the government

19 on a pledge of confidentiality, as well as the law

20 enforcement privilege and possibility the national

21 security privilege.

22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

 

 

 

 


48

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. But we can say that glyphosate is

2 one of the chemicals?

3 A. We can certainly talk about

4 glyphosate.

5 Q. Are there any other chemicals that

6 are added to the mixture that is being used in Plan

7 Columbia besides glyphosate?

8 A. When one speaks of glyphosate as the

9 generic active agent that is used to actually

10 affect the plan, there are another set of chemicals

11 which are included, and they are called

12 surfactants. Their purpose is to allow the

13 glyphosate to remain on the leave long enough to

14 have its active effect on the plant. It is like

15 baby shampoo.

16 Q. Is one of the ingredients that

17 you're describing called Cosmo-Flux?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. Is Cosmo-Flux part of the mixture

20 that is being used in Plan Columbia?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. Is another one something called

 

 

 

 


49

 

 

 

 

 

1 Poea, P-o-e-a?

2 A. I believe that is the correct name.

3 Q. What is the difference, as you sit

4 here, between Cosmo-Flux and Poea?

5 A. They're produced by different

6 manufacturers.

7 Q. But they do the same thing?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Which of them is being used in Plan

10 Columbia?

11 A. Both.

12 Q. Together?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Why would you need two of them?

15 A. Because in the commercially

16 available mixture which we purchase, the second of

17 the two surfactants is already an ingredient of the

18 mixture which we purchase. We add the Cosmo-Flux

19 in addition to that to have an additional

20 surfactant effect.

21 Q. Where is the Cosmo-Flux that you are

22 adding manufactured?

 

 

 

 


50

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. Do you know the name of the company

3 that manufacturers it?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Has the company that is supplying

6 it, the Cosmo-Flux that is being used in Plan

7 Columbia, has the company changed from the

8 beginning of the program until now?

9 A. That supplies the Cosmo-Flux?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. I don't know.

12 Q. Let me direct your attention to

13 page 3. About halfway down the page it says,

14 Mr. Beers: "There is no question that at certain

15 dosage levels, glyphosate or the commercial mixture

16 can injure people or kill them. What I'm trying to

17 say is that the levels that we apply are well below

18 any of those levels."

19 Did you, in fact, say that?

20 A. I did.

21 Q. What are the dimensions or factors

22 in your mind that would determine whether a certain

 

 

 

 


51

 

 

 

 

 

1 dosage level would kill someone?

2 A. The science, as I understand it, is

3 that the dosage level would have to be a

4 considerable degree greater than the very small

5 amount of dosage that a single flight would allow

6 to land on an individual.

7 The actual mixture of either

8 glyphosate or surfactant which would fall on an

9 individual, a naked person of approximately

10 150 pounds standing in a field, which would never

11 happen, would have approximately 12 milligrams of

12 the total amount of substance. Nine plus

13 milligrams would be glyphosate, the remaining 2

14 plus milligrams would be surfactant.

15 That's hardly anything,

16 approximating what the standard tests have

17 suggested would be the dosage level for glyphosate

18 and its surfactant as manufactured in the United

19 States and testing would be.

20 Q. Is there any process under which

21 someone is testing what is actually being sprayed,

22 the content of it?

 

 

 

 


52

 

 

 

 

 

1 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: I object to the form

2 of that. It's unclear to me.

3 THE WITNESS: Nor me.

4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm sorry, I'll try

5 again.

6 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

7 Q. You're getting this fumigant and

8 spraying it. Is anyone testing the actual chemical

9 compound that is being sprayed on some sort of

10 random basis to make sure that we're clear on what

11 it is made of?

12 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.

13 THE WITNESS: I have indicated that

14 products which are manufactured and sold in the

15 United States are tested regularly. That's the

16 test data we have.

17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

18 Q. Is anyone using commercially in the

19 United States the exact same chemical formulation

20 with the addition of these two surfactants that

21 you've described in testing it?

22 A. Cosmo-Flux is not sold within the

 

 

 

 


53

 

 

 

 

 

1 United States.

2 Q. When you say that the people who are

3 testing it in the United States, that would be

4 irrelevant to whether the chemical as used is the

5 same, right?

6 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of the

7 question.

8 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Objection.

9 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

10 Q. Everyone objected to the form of the

11 question, but the issue is whether you understood

12 the question.

13 MR. RIVERA: If you understand the

14 question, you may answer subject to the objection.

15 THE WITNESS: As to the matter of the

16 irrelevance of the test that has been done in the

17 United States, I believe it is relevant to the

18 matter at hand.

19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

20 Q. Why is that?

21 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, Counsel. I'm

22 going back and flipping through Mr. Beers'

 

 

 

 


54

 

 

 

 

 

1 Declaration, and it seems that we're going a bit

2 far afield from what he was supposed to be

3 testifying to today. Obviously, we've been giving

4 some latitude to talk somewhat about the herbicide.

5 But my understanding of his authorization and the

6 request for his testimony today really concerns the

7 policy position of the State Department and various

8 aspects of the impact of this litigation on

9 national security and other concerns that are

10 described in the Declaration rather than the

11 science or the health effects, for the most part,

12 of the herbicide.

13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm going to direct

14 you to paragraphs 22 and 23 of Mr. Beers'

15 Declaration, both of which involve his assertions

16 that there are no grounds to suggest concern for

17 human health. I believe that my questions are

18 extremely relevant there, and I have just a few

19 more which I would like to complete.

20 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

21 Q. You were beginning to explain to me

22 the relevance of the testing that is done on one

 

 

 

 


55

 

 

 

 

 

1 compound to the actual health effects of the

2 compound being used in Columbia which is different.

3 Why did you say that it was

4 relevant?

5 A. When you get to the actual mixture

6 that is being sprayed in Columbia, that is when it

7 is mixed with the water, which is the largest

8 single content of the mixture, the glyphosate and

9 the surfactant that comes with the glyphosate

10 represent a certain proportion which is the bulk of

11 the combination, and 1 percent of the actual out

12 the nozzle of the spray is Cosmo-Flux.

13 We have, because it is not sold in

14 the United States, asked EPA to look at the

15 ingredients as provided on a proprietary basis by

16 the manufacturer. And EPA has, after looking at

17 the contents, judged the contents of Cosmo-Flux as

18 safe to be sprayed on food crops in the United

19 States.

20 That, in combination with the

21 testing against the commercially available products

22 which are comparable to what we use, gives us the

 

 

 

 


56

 

 

 

 

 

1 view that is contained in the statement.

2 Q. Is it true that no one has actually

3 tested on humans the specific compounds together

4 that are being used in Plan Columbia?

5 A. To the best of my knowledge, no one

6 tests on humans or any of the herbicides or

7 pesticides. They are all done on animals.

8 Q. Are you aware of any scientific

9 tests done on animals to test the effects of the

10 specific combination of compounds being sprayed in

11 Plan Columbia?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Are there any plans to do such a

14 test?

15 A. We are considering the possibility.

16 Q. Who would conduct the test that you

17 are considering?

18 A. I don't know.

19 Q. Are you working with the EPA on

20 that?

21 A. The EPA would certainly be involved.

22 Q. Are you familiar with any legal

 

 

 

 


57

 

 

 

 

 

1 requirement under the Executive Order 12114 to test

2 these materials prior to using them in a context

3 that might harm humans?

4 A. I'm not familiar with that executive

5 order and would need to review it before I could

6 answer your question.

7 Q. Are you aware of any discussions

8 that have occurred in your bureau about the need to

9 conduct an environmental impact study?

10 MR. RIVERA: I'm going to object to the

11 question to the extent it requires the witness to

12 reveal any information that would be protected by

13 the deliberative process or any other applicable

14 privilege.

15 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

16 Q. I believe you can answer the

17 question without giving up the details that counsel

18 has enumerated.

19 MR. RIVERA: If you understand the

20 question.

21 THE WITNESS: I guess you're going to

22 have to reformulate the question.

 

 

 

 


58

 

 

 

 

 

1 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

2 Q. Have there been any discussions

3 inside your bureau regarding the need to comply

4 with environmental regulations by testing the

5 impact of the compound that you are spraying in

6 Columbia?

7 MR. RIVERA: Just a question of

8 clarification. The impact on the environment?

9 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: No. Humans or the

10 environment.

11 MR. RIVERA: I thought I heard

12 environment somewhere in your qualifications.

13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Humans are existing

14 in the environment.

15 MR. RIVERA: That's helpful to be clear

16 on the question.

17 THE WITNESS: At this particular point in

18 time, I am not aware of any specific plans to do

19 any environmental impact study of this particular

20 spray compound.

21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

22 Q. You're not familiar with Executive

 

 

 

 


59

 

 

 

 

 

1 Order 12114?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Are you aware of whether there are

4 any laws in Columbia that would require an

5 environmental impact study to be done before you

6 could spray something like the fumigant you are

7 using?

8 A. I'm not specifically aware of any,

9 no.

10 Q. Are you aware of any discussions

11 about whether the program is in compliance with the

12 law in Columbia on that dimension?

13 A. Yes. It is my understanding that it

14 is in compliance with the law in Columbia.

15 Q. Does the fumigant that you are using

16 in Columbia kill food crops like corn, yucca, et

17 cetera?

18 A. It kills plants.

19 Q. So if a farmer's plants were sprayed

20 by this fumigant, it would kill them, just as it is

21 killing the cocaine?

22 A. It could.

 

 

 

 


60

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. There is no way that this fumigant

2 distinguishes between cocaine and corn. It kills

3 plants; is that correct?

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. You had earlier said that the dosage

6 is low enough that it cannot hurt humans in terms

7 of the spray that you are using in Columbia,

8 correct?

9 A. I said that it is not significant

10 enough to kill humans.

11 Q. Could it injure humans?

12 A. The studies that have been done on

13 glyphosate have suggested that there is a mild eye

14 irritation that results.

15 Q. Are you aware of any other health

16 effects just from the glyphosate?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Again, that study did not introduce

19 the Cosmo-Flux; is that correct?

20 A. But it did have the surfactant that

21 is part of the glyphosate mixture.

22 Q. Which surfactant, what is the word?

 

 

 

 


61

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. The other one, the Bpoe.

2 Q. Would someone increase their chances

3 of suffering an injury if they are sprayed

4 frequently? Is frequency a factor in your

5 determination?

6 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, I object to the

7 form of the question.

8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

9 Q. I will be happy to try again if you

10 don't understand it, Mr. Beers.

11 A. There is a second set of studies

12 that are done on most herbicides, and they are

13 exposure -- prolonged exposure to the substance.

14 It is my understanding that those studies are

15 conducted over a 90-day period, and they presume a

16 certain dosage level administered on a daily basis.

17 Those studies with respect to

18 glyphosate do not suggest a long-term effect.

19 However, and more importantly, it is unlikely that

20 an individual would be sprayed more than once. It

21 is highly unlikely that an individual would ever be

22 sprayed more than twice, period.

 

 

 

 


62

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. But that would be a factor if in

2 fact they were? In increasing the risk to a

3 person, the dosage is one factor, but the frequency

4 is another factor?

5 A. That's what I said.

6 Q. Are you aware of any rules or

7 recommendations by the commercial manufacturers of

8 this kind of fumigant that you are using in

9 Columbia dealing with the altitude from which it

10 should be sprayed?

11 A. I believe there are some references

12 in the guidelines.

13 Q. Do you have any knowledge of what

14 those guidelines are? Should it be sprayed very

15 high up or close to the ground?

16 A. It should be sprayed close to the

17 ground.

18 Q. How close to the ground?

19 A. I don't remember precisely, but the

20 guidelines say.

21 Q. Do you believe, as you sit here,

22 that the DynCorp program in Columbia is in

 

 

 

 


63

 

 

 

 

 

1 compliance with those guidelines in terms of

2 altitude?

3 MR. RIVERA: Object to the question.

4 Could you clarify, whose guidelines?

5 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

6 Q. The guidelines that you referred to

7 that the commercial manufacturers recommend.

8 A. As I cannot remember what the

9 commercial guidelines are, I'm at odds to respond

10 to your question.

11 Q. Is it part of the direction that the

12 bureau is giving DynCorp to be in compliance with

13 the commercially-recommended applications of the

14 fumigant?

15 A. We have our own guidelines.

16 Q. Are they different in terms of the

17 altitude recommendation than the commercial

18 guidelines?

19 A. Our guidelines are 50 to 150 feet.

20 Q. What are the commercial --

21 A. I don't know.

22 Q. Do the commercial vendors put a

 

 

 

 


64

 

 

 

 

 

1 warning label on the fumigant if it has glyphosate

2 in it?

3 A. I believe so.

4 Q. Does the warning include telling

5 humans to be out of the area?

6 A. I'm not positive about that.

7 Q. Let's go back to your 60 Minutes

8 transcript, page 2. You are specifically asked the

9 question near the top of the page by Mr. Croft that

10 the commercial Roundup says that people should stay

11 out of area, as well as pets, if the area is being

12 sprayed, and you respond to the question.

13 Do you have any knowledge at all of

14 the commercial regulations?

15 A. I'm sorry, I still don't see it on

16 the page.

17 Q. Page 2, the second question

18 Mr. Croft asks you, it begins, "If you looked at

19 the --

20 A. Okay, got it.

21 Q. Could you review both the question

22 and your response.

 

 

 

 


65

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. (Examining.)

2 Q. Do you have any knowledge of the

3 commercial warning that Roundup is using?

4 A. Mr. Croft, I believe, is correct in

5 quoting the Roundup web site.

6 I have never said we're using

7 Roundup, sir.

8 Q. Is it your position that it is okay,

9 that you would not warn people to be out of the

10 area when you're about to spray the actual fumigant

11 that you're using in Columbia?

12 A. We do not warn people to be out of

13 the area when we are spraying.

14 Q. Because it's perfectly safe to be

15 sprayed?

16 A. It is also a risk.

17 Q. Could you acknowledge the first part

18 of the question, though.

19 Is it your position that it is

20 perfectly safe to be sprayed by the actual fumigant

21 that you are using in Columbia?

22 A. As I have said earlier, there are

 

 

 

 


66

 

 

 

 

 

1 testing indications that it could be mildly

2 irritating to the eye. If you judge that to be

3 unsafe, then I'm not in a position to say it's

4 safe. We do not judge it to be harmful to the

5 health of individuals.

6 Q. You also say on that same page that

7 you compare it to table salt, is that correct, on

8 the level of toxicity?

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. Are you aware that the New York

11 Attorney General in 1996 got an injunction against

12 Monsanto for saying that glyphosate is as safe as

13 table salt because it was proved to be untrue?

14 A. No, I'm unaware of that.

15 Q. What do you base your statement on

16 that it is as safe as table salt?

17 A. Information that has been provided

18 to us in comparing the toxicity levels, which are

19 done by independent testers to determine what the

20 toxicity of table salt or baby shampoo is. So I'm

21 looking at test results. We are looking at test

22 results.

 

 

 

 


67

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. But you said the specific compound

2 that you are using has not been tested on humans;

3 is that correct?

4 A. That's correct. Nor are any of the

5 tests, to the best of my knowledge, on humans.

6 Q. What date are you referring to?

7 A. I'm referring to the standard tests

8 that EPA sets up to look at toxicity levels of

9 substances.

10 Q. As part of the bureau's oversight in

11 coordination with DynCorp, is there any attempt to

12 try to spray areas when populations are not likely

13 to be there?

14 A. Sure.

15 Q. What kinds of guidelines are you

16 providing?

17 A. The general guideline, which is to

18 not spray people if it is at all avoidable, to not

19 spray houses, to not spray fields that are clearly

20 food crop fields. But if food crop is intercropped

21 with coca, then it is coca.

22 Q. Are these guidelines in a written

 

 

 

 


68

 

 

 

 

 

1 form, or are they part of the contract?

2 A. I'm not sure.

3 Q. But you are sure that that is one of

4 the factors in entering into this coordination with

5 DynCorp?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Do you know if the pilots themselves

8 are instructed as to the possible risks of spraying

9 humans?

10 A. I don't know that for a fact.

11 Q. Do you know if the containers for

12 the fumigant that you are using contain warning

13 labels of any sort?

14 A. I don't know that.

15 Q. Should they, according to your

16 understanding of the safety precautions?

17 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of the

18 question. You're asking him should the --

19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

20 Q. Is there any regulation, guideline

21 or requirement of the contract or any other

22 direction that your bureau has given to DynCorp to

 

 

 

 


69

 

 

 

 

 

1 say that the barrel storing this material for use

2 must have a warning label as to its possible

3 negative health effects?

4 A. I don't know.

5 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Let's mark this as

6 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6.

7 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 6

8 was marked for identification.)

9 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

10 Q. Mr. Beers, I've handed you

11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6, which is a report on the

12 study of health complaints in Columbia related to

13 aerial eradication. This was produced to me by

14 Mr. Gallagher, and it's on the list that I showed

15 you earlier of the documents produced. I believe

16 you said that you had not reviewed any of the

17 documents.

18 So my question is simply have you

19 ever reviewed this particular report?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. In what context?

22 A. It was information that had been

 

 

 

 


70

 

 

 

 

 

1 produced by the embassy concerning health effects

2 that was of interest to me. I read it.

3 Q. What conclusion, if any, did you

4 draw from this report regarding the risk to humans

5 being sprayed with the fumigant that you are using

6 in Columbia?

7 A. That this report did not provide a

8 conclusion that would suggest that there is a risk

9 to humans.

10 Q. Did it prove the opposite, though,

11 in your mind that there is no risk to humans?

12 A. No.

13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I have another report

14 that we're going to call Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7.

15 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 7

16 was marked for identification.)

17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

18 Q. Have you ever seen this report

19 before?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did you have a role in drafting it?

22 A. No.

 

 

 

 


71

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. Did you have a review role?

2 A. Not in the chain of its

3 finalization, no.

4 Q. In what sense did you?

5 A. I read it in conjunction with my

6 work. I looked at it as it was being prepared. I

7 did not personally sign off on this document when

8 it went forward.

9 Q. The pages aren't numbered, but if

10 you take the second to last page, the second new

11 paragraph, "Human dietary exposures and risks are

12 minimal. Exposure to workers," et cetera.

13 Do you know what studies, if any,

14 that is based on?

15 A. There are, as I said earlier, a

16 series of studies which have been done with

17 respect, on the one hand, to the specific testing

18 for toxicity and long-term effects on individuals?

19 There have been other studies which

20 use that information and other information that

21 reach the conclusions of the first sentence,

22 including studies that were done by the United

 

 

 

 


72

 

 

 

 

 

1 Nations.

2 Q. Is it your understanding that this

3 particular paragraph I have pointed to you, if you

4 look at the paragraph above and below it, there's a

5 reference to the word "glyphosate".

6 Is it your understanding that these

7 studies were limited to glyphosate?

8 A. And its normally included

9 surfactants.

10 Q. But not the mixture that you're

11 using in Columbia?

12 A. It did not include reference to any

13 Cosmo-Flux, to the best of my knowledge.

14 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I have one more

15 document that we will call Plaintiffs' Number 8.

16 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 8

17 was marked for identification.)

18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

19 Q. Have you ever seen this before,

20 Mr. Beers?

21 A. I certainly have seen something that

22 is very similar to it. What doesn't -- what I

 

 

 

 


73

 

 

 

 

 

1 don't remember is a document that began with these

2 questions. I remember a document very much like

3 this, if not the same thing, which included

4 questions and answers like these.

5 Q. The document that you're referring

6 to, was it still focused on the program in

7 Columbia?

8 A. Yes, and it was produced by the

9 Narcotics Affairs Section.

10 Q. Do you know who in the Narcotics

11 Affairs Section produced the document you recall,

12 whether or not it was this one?

13 A. I believe the individual in question

14 would have been Suzanne Shelton.

15 Q. What is her position?

16 A. She is a member of the Narcotics

17 Affairs Section.

18 Q. Is she a scientist?

19 A. No.

20 Q. What is her background?

21 A. She's a lawyer.

22 Q. On that note, Mr. Beers, your

 

 

 

 


74

 

 

 

 

 

1 background is history; is that correct?

2 A. I have a rather eclectic background.

3 But, yes, that's my academic training.

4 Q. But you're not a chemist or a

5 biologist?

6 A. I am not a scientist.

7 Q. Are you aware of any studies that

8 have tested just glyphosate for damage from

9 inhalation on humans?

10 A. Not that I remember. However --

11 excuse me -- the standard test includes inhalation.

12 Q. The standard test?

13 A. Dermatology, inhalation, eye

14 irritation and a fourth category.

15 Q. What is the fourth category?

16 A. I don't remember.

17 Q. When you say standard test though,

18 again you're referring to the tests on the

19 commercial products here in the United States?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. Mr. Beers, the area of Columbia, the

22 width of which you have not told me but that we

 

 

 

 


75

 

 

 

 

 

1 have called the no-spray zone, is there any

2 alternative being used there to eradicate the coca

3 plants?

4 A. No, not to my knowledge.

5 Q. I'm not under oath, but I'm going to

6 tell you truthfully that my 7-year-old and I were

7 sort of discussing this case, and he suggested that

8 hand picking -- his name is Alexander -- seems to

9 be a logical thing to do, that people wouldn't be

10 hurt and they could actually find the real plants

11 that they're looking for.

12 Has that option been explored at all

13 by your bureau?

14 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the form of

15 the question to the extent that it requires

16 divulging any classified or otherwise protected

17 information. Otherwise, you may answer.

18 THE WITNESS: We use manual eradication

19 in other countries. The governments, excuse me, of

20 those countries use manual eradiation. Peru and

21 Bolivia, to be specific, in the Andean region.

22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

 

 

 

 


76

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. Why is it not being used in

2 Columbia?

3 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

4 THE WITNESS: The volume of the coca, the

5 security considerations to put people on the

6 ground.

7 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

8 Q. I would like to take about a

9 five-minute break. We're close to wrapping up.

10 (A brief recess was taken.)

11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

12 Q. Thank you for your indulgence,

13 Mr. Beers. I'm just about done here.

14 Have you heard of any studies,

15 particularly in California, where students have

16 reported negative health effects from the spraying

17 of the fumigant known as Roundup?

18 A. No, I can't say that I have.

19 Q. If we look at Exhibits 6, 7 and 8,

20 the three studies that were produced by

21 Mr. Gallagher to me -- I'll be very careful with

22 the question, and you'll probably be instructed to

 

 

 

 


77

 

 

 

 

 

1 be very careful with the answer -- I'm not asking

2 you for anything, other than whether you can tell

3 me if there are other studies that you're aware of

4 that show any negative effects of the fumigant that

5 you are using in Columbia?

6 A. I know of no studies that show a

7 negative effect of the fumigant that we are using

8 in Columbia.

9 Q. Do you know of any studies, other

10 than these three that are Exhibit 6 through 8, that

11 show that it does not hurt anyone to spray the

12 fumigant that you are using in Columbia, that are

13 specific to that fumigant?

14 MR. RIVERA: If I can just clarify the

15 question, you're asking for State Department

16 information or studies that are reflected in State

17 Department materials as opposed to EPA or anyone

18 else?

19 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Any study.

20 THE WITNESS: Relevant to Columbia?

21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

22 Q. Yes.

 

 

 

 


78

 

 

 

 

 

1 A. There is another study which I have

2 not seen the final version of it -- although, it

3 may now exist -- which was similar to the Aponte

4 study, a different area and a larger group.

5 Q. Do you know who is conducting that

6 study?

7 A. I believe it is the same group of

8 people.

9 Q. That did?

10 A. The Aponte study.

11 Q. Was any study done dealing with the

12 fumigant that you are using in Columbia on Patrick

13 Air Force Base?

14 A. I'm not aware of one.

15 Q. Who trains the DynCorp pilots that

16 are operating in Columbia?

17 A. The DynCorp pilots that are

18 operating in Columbia are provided through a

19 subcontractor, East Corporation. The Air Wing and

20 DynCorp together have a pilot training program. I

21 can't say in any individual instance who

22 specifically trained that pilot on this mission.

 

 

 

 


79

 

 

 

 

 

1 They are all experienced pilots.

2 Q. But your wing division does some

3 training in Columbia?

4 A. Or in Patrick.

5 Q. For people that would be going down

6 to Columbia?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. You said the Columbian government

9 could stop a particular fumigation flight if the

10 wind was to great?

11 A. Right.

12 Q. Are there any other --

13 A. Or any other reason. They could

14 stop it, period.

15 MR. RIVERA: Let me instruct the witness

16 to let Mr. Collingsworth finish his question.

17 THE WITNESS: Sorry.

18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

19 Q. Are you aware of any other reasons

20 that in fact have been used to stop a flight, other

21 than weather, by the Columbian government?

22 A. You're including wind within the

 

 

 

 


80

 

 

 

 

 

1 weather question?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. Yes, I am.

4 Q. What was the reason or reasons?

5 A. The government of Columbia stopped

6 spraying in Putumayo on approximately the 5th of

7 February of the year 2001 because they wanted to

8 end spraying in Putumayo at that time to see what

9 would happen with respect to the local campesino

10 signing up for alternative development.

11 Q. Was it resumed?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Any other reasons you're aware of

14 why the Columbian government stopped the spraying?

15 MR. RIVERA: Stopped the spraying in

16 Putumayo?

17 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: In Columbia.

18 MR. RIVERA: Ever?

19 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Yes.

20 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not.

21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

22 Q. Could your bureau stop a particular

 

 

 

 


81

 

 

 

 

 

1 spray run for any reason?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What would the reasons be that your

4 bureau would be authorized to stop a particular

5 fumigation run in Columbia?

6 A. In the judgment of the people who

7 were involved, the spraying conditions were such

8 that it was inappropriate, assuming that the

9 Columbian government hadn't on its on recognizance

10 stopped that or for other considerations which

11 might be political.

12 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm handing you an

13 exhibit that we're going to mark as Plaintiffs'

14 Number 9.

15 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No. 9

16 was marked for identification.)

17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

18 Q. Mr. Beers, I've handed you a

19 Declaration signed by a Salvador Quishpe, who is

20 the political director of an organization called

21 Conaie.

22 Do you know that organization? Have

 

 

 

 


82

 

 

 

 

 

1 you heard of them before?

2 A. I'm not sure.

3 Q. I would direct your attention to

4 paragraph number 5, the last paragraph.

5 A. (Witness complies.)

6 Q. If you could read that paragraph.

7 MR. RIVERA: Can Mr. Beers have a minute

8 to read the entire document?

9 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Sure.

10 MR. RIVERA: Thank you.

11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

12 Q. Have you had a chance to review

13 paragraph number five?

14 A. I have.

15 Q. In paragraph number five, the

16 declarant is questioning the foreign policy

17 objectives of the United States government.

18 And my question to you is, is a

19 factor of your foreign policy considerations that

20 are enumerated throughout your own Declaration

21 trying to maintain good relations with the local

22 populations who are not drug traffickers and who

 

 

 

 


83

 

 

 

 

 

1 are not terrorists?

2 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, the local

3 population in Columbia?

4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: And Ecuador.

5 THE WITNESS: It is not the policy of the

6 United States to drive people away from the United

7 States.

8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

9 Q. Have you ever sent or directed

10 anyone to go to Ecuador to specifically investigate

11 whether there are effects that would be visible

12 that would be consistent with the claim that the

13 fumigation has occurred in Ecuador?

14 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the extent

15 that it calls for a revealing any classified or

16 other national security protected information.

17 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.

18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

19 Q. Are there any plans to do that?

20 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.

21 THE WITNESS: Not at present.

22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

 

 

 

 


84

 

 

 

 

 

1 Q. Are you aware of any study done by

2 anyone that would indicate to your satisfaction

3 that there is no harm done in Ecuador that would be

4 consistent with fumigation?

5 A. We have looked into the allegations,

6 and we have found no evidence that spraying was

7 done in Ecuador or that spray drifted into Ecuador.

8 Q. But you have said that you didn't

9 send anyone to Ecuador to do that.

10 How did you accomplish that?

11 A. We know where the planes are.

12 Q. So based on your knowledge of where

13 the planes actually flew?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. What evidence do you have of the

16 plane flight paths that would to you demonstrate

17 that it is impossible that they sprayed in Ecuador?

18 A. Almost all planes and one plane on

19 every flight of planes is equipped with a location

20 system which tells us where the plane is.

21 Q. What is the closest, as you sit here

22 today, that you're aware of a plane that was

 

 

 

 


85

 

 

 

 

 

1 spraying under Plan Columbia came to the border

2 with Ecuador ever in the history of Plan Columbia?

3 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the question

4 to the extent that it calls for revealing any

5 classified State secret information.

6 THE WITNESS: I'm not in a position to

7 answer that question.

8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:

9 Q. Do you know the answer to it and

10 you're not answering because --

11 A. No, I don't know the answer to the

12 question.

13 Q. Who would know the answer to that

14 question on your staff? Is there someone who is

15 particularly --

16 A. Officials in the Air Wing.

17 Q. Is there one particular official who

18 would be most likely to have that information?

19 A. I'm not sure.

20 Q. Do you have some options for me?

21 A. Mr. Etheridge.

22 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Mr. Beers, that

 

 

 

 


86

 

 

 

 

 

1 concludes my questions. Thank you very much.

2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

3 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Does anyone else have

4 anything?

5 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: No questions.

6 (Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the deposition

7 of RAND BEERS was concluded.)

8 * * * * *

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 

 

 

 


87

 

 

 

 

 

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )

3

4 I, RAND BEERS, the witness herein, having

5 read the foregoing testimony of the pages of this

6 deposition do hereby certify it to be a true and

7 correct transcript, subject to the corrections, if

8 any, shown on the attached page.

9

10

11 ________________________

12 RAND BEERS

13

14 Subscribed and sworn to before me

15 this ______day of____________, 2002.

16 __________________________________.

17

18

19

20

21

22

 

 

 

 


88

 

 

 

 

 

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )

3

4 I, SHIRLEY S. MITCHELL, Notary Public

5 within and for the District of Columbia, do hereby

6 certify:

7 That the witness whose deposition is

8 hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn and that the

9 within transcript is a true record of the testimony

10 given by such witness.

11 I further certify that I am not related

12 to any of the parties to this action by blood or

13 marriage and that I am in no way interested in the

14 outcome of this matter.

15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set

16 my hand this _______day of __________, 2002.

17

18

19 __________________________

20 My Commission Expires:

21 March 31, 2005

22