# Does the U.S. have legal right to try Convicted Lockerbie bomber again? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 23, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-have-legal-right-to-try-convicted-lockerbie-bomber-again/593820 "2011-08-23T21:42:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-have-legal-right-to-try-convicted-lockerbie-bomber-again/593820/41 "2011-08-25T04:31:23Z")
We blew our chance at killing that scumbag. When he was released and heading home we should have sent two F-117s armed with carbon fiber air-to-air missiles to intercept the plane over the Mediterranean and blown it out of the sky. As far as the flight crew etc., eh, ya lay down with dogs… ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-have-legal-right-to-try-convicted-lockerbie-bomber-again/593820/42 "2011-08-25T10:31:49Z")
F-117 was not a fighter was it? On the Megrahi issue, I really doubt the US will do much more then bluster; there is a ton of evidence to support he was framed; hell his “accomplice” was set free at the trial. Too much risk of embarrassment. I am now remembering why I hated conflict of laws; but as under Scottish law as in English law law a conviction in a foreign jurisdiction _dose_ serve as a bar to further prosecutions (I am too lazy to cite the precedent) won’t that come into play? I know it could tie the UK Government’s hands in supporting what would be under Scottish law an unlawful act. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-have-legal-right-to-try-convicted-lockerbie-bomber-again/593820/43 "2011-08-25T13:18:22Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > But we’re not talking about domestic prosecutions - we’re talking about extradition proceedings preparatory to domestic prosecutions. The state has already begun giving evidence against the accused, albeit in a different forum. > > I’m walking on ground I don’t know very well here, but I would be quite surprised if there’s a lot of law in this area. No, the extradtion process is if anything analogous to the grand jury process – the evidence being given is not to show the guilt of the underlying offense, but merely to show that the accused has been properly accused, with proper charging documents, executed properly by the requesting sovereign. The “crime” you seek to prove at extradition is not that the accused committed the underlying offense. You seek to prove that the accused is “guilty” of being properly charged in th requesting jurisdiction. Think about what you’re suggesting: could a detained person in Alabama demand an extradition hearing to fight his removal to Mississippi, lose, and then plead double jeopardy in Mississippi because of the evidence presented in Alabama? No. Because he already can’t plead double jeopardy even if he’s tried and convicted in Alabama, so clearly the extradition proceeding doesn’t raise a jeopardy bar. Well, could he be extradited from Alabama, tried and convicted in Mississippi, and then returned to Alabama to face charges arising from the same act? Yes. And could he plead double jeopardy in Alabama based on either his trial and conviction in Mississippi? No. Finally, could he plead double jeopardy in Alabama based on his previous extradition hearing in Alabama? A resounding no. Jeopardy does not attach to assistance, extradtion hearings, or any proceedings other than the actual criminal trial, and it only bars a subsequent prosecution by the same sovereign. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-have-legal-right-to-try-convicted-lockerbie-bomber-again/593820/44 "2011-08-25T13:43:12Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > F-117 was not a fighter was it? > > On the Megrahi issue, I really doubt the US will do much more then bluster; there is a ton of evidence to support he was framed; hell his “accomplice” was set free at the trial. Too much risk of embarrassment. > > I am now remembering why I hated conflict of laws; but as under Scottish law as in English law law a conviction in a foreign jurisdiction _dose_ serve as a bar to further prosecutions (I am too lazy to cite the precedent) won’t that come into play? I know it could tie the UK Government’s hands in supporting what would be under Scottish law an unlawful act. One of the benefits (or detriments, depending on your point of view) of studying law for practice in Virginia is you get a whole heap of common law, even stuff that simply no longer is used here (or perhaps anywhere). For example, I had to learn the writ of coram nobis, even though post-conviction relief procedure is now statutorily prescribed. So, too, I had to learn the plea of autrefois convict, which if I recall does indeed bar subsequent reprosecution in the English system. (Halsbury’s Laws?) But it also seems to me that I recently read something along the lines of the European Commission on Human Rights deciding in a German case that only prosecutions in the same jurisdiction were barred. So I have no idea at all how those rules might interact with each other. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-have-legal-right-to-try-convicted-lockerbie-bomber-again/593820/45 "2011-08-25T13:58:12Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > F-117 was not a fighter was it? No, and the F-117 had already been retired from service by the time Al-Megrahi was released. And it didn’t carry missiles. And they wouldn’t be made of carbon fiber if it did. > [@Bricker](#): > > No, the extradtion process is if anything analogous to the grand jury process – the evidence being given is not to show the guilt of the underlying offense, but merely to show that the accused has been properly accused, with proper charging documents, executed properly by the requesting sovereign. The “crime” you seek to prove at extradition is not that the accused committed the underlying offense. You seek to prove that the accused is “guilty” of being properly charged in th requesting jurisdiction. > > Think about what you’re suggesting: could a detained person in Alabama demand an extradition hearing to fight his removal to Mississippi, lose, and then plead double jeopardy in Mississippi because of the evidence presented in Alabama? > > No. Because he already can’t plead double jeopardy even if he’s tried and convicted in Alabama, so clearly the extradition proceeding doesn’t raise a jeopardy bar. Okay, I can live with that. > [@](#): > > But it also seems to me that I recently read something along the lines of the European Commission on Human Rights deciding in a German case that only prosecutions in the same jurisdiction were barred. So I have no idea at all how those rules might interact with each other. Like state constitutions, the ECHR can _expand_ individual rights, but it cannot contract them. So it can _create_ a prohibition on double jeopardy under Scottish law, but it can’t overrule an existing one. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-have-legal-right-to-try-convicted-lockerbie-bomber-again/593820/46 "2011-08-25T20:05:59Z")
One aspect of this I didn’t realize, from today’s [Independent](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-officials-trying-to-trace-megrahi-2343773.html): > [@](#): > > The Scottish Justice Secretary said officials are trying to contact Libyan rebel leaders as part of efforts to track down the Lockerbie bomber. > . > . > Mr MacAskill said: "Mr Megrahi is a Scottish prisoner. He’s been released on licence in terms of the law that applies in Scotland. > > “He remains a Scottish prisoner having been convicted by a Scottish court, albeit one that sat in the Netherlands, but it did so after the intervention of the United Nations, of Nelson Mandela and others, and he was tried by international agreement under the laws of Scotland.” ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-have-legal-right-to-try-convicted-lockerbie-bomber-again/593820/47 "2011-08-29T01:04:40Z")
well, it looks like the question of US jurisdiction is a moot point - [the new Libyan government has announced that it will not extradite al-Megrahi.](http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Libyan-Rebels-Will-Not-Extradite-Lockerbie-Bomber-128568703.html) > [@](#): > > Later Sunday, CNN television reported that al-Megrahi had been found in Tripoli and appeared “near death.” > > Nic Robertson, a correspondent for the network, said he found al-Megrahi at a spacious villa in the Libyan capital guarded by at least six security cameras and attended to by relatives. > > CNN footage showed al-Megrahi apparently laying unconscious in a bed. His family said he is being kept alive with oxygen and a fluid drip, that he has stopped eating and occasionally lapses into a coma. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-have-legal-right-to-try-convicted-lockerbie-bomber-again/593820/48 "2011-08-29T18:07:56Z")
I was somewhat surprised to see in the CNN coverage the absolute silence relative to the doubts about the conviction. No wonder Americans are or were so hot for the fellow. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-have-legal-right-to-try-convicted-lockerbie-bomber-again/593820/49 "2011-08-29T18:09:43Z")
IANAL, but I don’t see why he couldn’t be tried in an American court. He murdered American citizens, but has never been tried under U. S. law, so double jeopardy doesn’t attach. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-have-legal-right-to-try-convicted-lockerbie-bomber-again/593820/50 "2011-08-29T18:40:43Z")
As I read the above exchanges, from US law perspective there isn’t a legal barrier. So I suppose that answers the GQ. But that is moot as the Libyan authorities have no intention of extraditing him (never mind it is not clear he in fact had anything to do with Lockerbie). It would appear their legal analysis is, he’s been judged and released now, end of story. And it would seem clear contra the keyboard Rambos earlier, the Americans are not going to go to war with the revolution they just supported over a guy who is clearly seriously ill if not almost dead. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-have-legal-right-to-try-convicted-lockerbie-bomber-again/593820/51 "2011-08-29T18:56:26Z")
_If_ al-Megrahi is truly guilty, and _if_ the US really wants to try the person responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, then the thing to do is try to get their mitts on Ghaddafi. However, I believe the Libyans are going to insist on first dibs there, and there’s no point in hanging a guy more than once. Maybe if the new reports of fleeing to Algeria are correct and Algeria turns Qaddhafi over to the ICC instead of Libya, but even there I doubt he’d outlive his imprisonment. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-have-legal-right-to-try-convicted-lockerbie-bomber-again/593820/52 "2011-08-30T11:58:30Z")
Algeria was lending air support to Qadaffi until NATO declared a no-fly zone, so I’d say the chances of them arresting him are pretty slim. Hell, they’re probably giving him asylum, and have been since before the rebels took Tripoli. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-have-legal-right-to-try-convicted-lockerbie-bomber-again/593820.md?page=2)