No surprise.

If the man is comatose, as his family now claims, then why should he be handed over?  What good would that do?  Of what possible use would he be to anyone now?

Refusing to allow extradition is telling us that they will not be a friend of the US. You can not buy friendship, so we should not send one penny of financial aid to them at all.  They gladly take our help but do not want to earn it. If that is the way they want to be,let them but without US money.

I think it is a misreading of this situation to suppose that the new Libyan government will not be a friend of the USA (or any other Western country).

It seems to me that the message in this statement is aimed at the Arab and African audience. The pro-Gadaffi rhetoric has been that the rebels are the tools of Western imperialism. There are worrying signs that even places like South Africa (of all countries) are sympathetic to that view. So of course the new government has to look tough in the face of demands from the West. To do anything else at this stage would play into the hands of their critics.

Which is not to say that whatever emerges in Libya will be helpful for the West - just that we should not misread this statement.

It is not clear from the linked story whether either the US or the UK has formally requested extradition and, if so, in what context.  One would think that his imprisonment and release on medical grounds would be the end of it on Lockerbie.  There is some reference to an investigation of the shootings from the Libyan Embassy in London, a UK matter, not US.  But one would think that the Brits had ample time to interrogate the man when he was in custody in the UK.  A compromise would be to allow British authorities access to validate his medical condition and to gain information, if he is capable of giving it.

The UK wouldn’t seek to extradite him as the Scottish Government let him go in the first place.

We entered into the Libyan affair with the naivete of children seeking to ‘do good.’ 

There was no consultation of Congress in a matter not immediately affecting the national security of the USA and there is no apparent plan or “end game” goal for this poorly managed affair.

I agree that Qadaffi was a ‘bad man’ who oppressed his people, but so are the leaders of many of the member nations of the United Nations.  Does that mean that we are therefore justified in picking and choosing which oppressive leader to remove from power at any time we choose. 

There is also hypocrisy here.  Many of those who were against the invasion of Iraq seem to think that the use of American military force to overthrow Qadaffi is a ‘good thing.’

He was released 2 years ago because he ‘had 3 months to live’.  If in fact he is seriously ill, then let him die.  If he is not, then I believe we should try him in US courts.  If they refuse to allow extradition, fine, I won’t take that as ‘proof’  they are turning to Al-Qaeda but it will be a sign.  And we don’t need to give them financial aid…..