Lockerbie PanAm 103 Bomber in U.S. Custody

[NotHardUp1]

Over 30 years in the pursuit. Abu Agila Masud may finally face punishment.

Lockerbie bombing suspect in US custody

The Libyan man is accused of making the bomb which destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie.

www.bbc.com

‘Overwhelming news’: Lockerbie arrest thrills families of victims

"I thought perhaps I was dreaming," Stephanie Bernstein said of the news of the arrest.

www.politico.com

 

[eddielee]

I remember that horrible crime. I wonder if he will be brought to justice?

 

[jjonn3]

I am sorry he has been free for so long - but at least he face justice in his old age.

 

[Vannie]

Wow. I do remember hearing the breaking news.

 

[NotHardUp1]

As it has been more than three decades, justice is now impossible. Additionally, even though we have the death penalty at the federal level, he'd have to live a LONNNG life in order to exhaust appeals, even as a non-citizen. Therefore, the most that can come of it is his imprisonment and the satisfaction of the families of the victims, some of whom have already said how wonderful it is that he has been taken.

The citizens of Lockerbie are no doubt going to be very attached to what proceeds from here, as well.

 

[unloadonme]

Does he find himself in American custody as a result of entirely lawful actions by the authorities?

 

[NotHardUp1]

I haven't read far enough to know that. It depends on how lawful you define "authority" in Libya. He apparently was taken captive by some militia type force in Libya before being surrendered.

Frankly, after he helped blow hundreds of souls out of the sky over Scotland, they could have used a James Bond plot or one from Mission Impossible for all I know.

I'm not in favor of ever torturing any prisoner, nor selling arms for favors from guerilla groups like Reagan did, but a death squad would have been just fine. The whole dynamic of terrorism is that it isn't a conventional war. It's a perpetual undercover conflict in which both the terrorist and the goverment are operating cloak and dagger. If there is no battlefield, then I'm fine with taking a death squad to assassinate a terrorist combatant.

The point of a trial in a war crime seems a bit of a show, as no one dying on the battlefield ever got such a due process.

 

[unloadonme]

I wasn't just thinking of the Libyan authorities. Is there, for instance, a formal extradition treaty in place between Libya and the US?

 

[NotHardUp1]

I don't know about our treaty, but I doubt it. That only means the extradition would have been ordinary. Not having an extradition treaty doesn't mean a government cannot agree to surrender a prisoner, only that there is no arranged agreement to do so.

The story in the article did mention that the man was already serving a five year prison sentence in Libya for bomb making, so it is presumable the Libyans got something favorable from the US and/or Uk for the rendition.

 

[unloadonme]

Rendition? That makes it sound as dodgy as hell.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I have no idea. But presumably the details will come out as the story gets more detailed coverage in the press.

Being dodgy doesn't change the fact that he confessed, when in Libyan custody, to having constructed the bomb.

He may have been extradited perfectly legally, or via other means. There's no pretending governments don't do extraordinary things in these cases.

The fact that he's evaded justice for over three decades may well mitigate the niceties of international due process.

After all, the Pakistani were harboring Bin Laden, so it's not plausible that a US military raid was legal. Yet Bin Laden was an overt enemy of the (US) state, so not sure of the value of legality. If we had requested rendition, it's more than obvious the Pakistani would have let him escape.

I'm not for the overreach of Homeland Security, but I'm also not for being blown out of the sky. The terrorism age has its own needed compromises.

I saw a blip yesterday about it being the anniversary of Teddy Roosevelt's Nobel Prize, awarded for his role in ending the Russo-Japanese War. It's proven that Roosevelt got both parties to San Francisco for the peace talks by lying to both sides. Yet, the war needed to end.