[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of the Sunday Mirror. It reads as follows:]
Barack Obama will demand the Lockerbie bomber as the price of supporting a new government in Libya.
The US President says the deportation of freed Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi is a condition of him backing the rebels if they win power.
Mr Obama wants Megrahi to be tried in the States for putting a bomb on the New York-bound jet that blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, a crime for which he was convicted by a Scottish court.
Cancer-stricken Megrahi has disappeared in Libya where he has been living after being released from jail because he supposedly had only months to live.
Intelligence sources fear he has been taken into ruler Colonel Muhamar Gaddafi’s own compound - and that Libyan leader would rather kill him than let his Lockerbie secrets be revealed.
Megrahi is believed to know the full story of the bombing in which 270 died and can name everyone involved - including Gaddafi.
The Sunday Mirror understands that top US officials have held talks with rebel leaders and demanded Megrahi be handed over.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a conference on Wednesday with FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney-General Eric Holder about how bring Megrahi and Gaddafi to justice.
A Washington source said: “This is seen as a real chance to get hold of the bomber who killed 189 American citizens.
“He may have spent a few years in a Scottish prison but in the eyes of the American people he has never faced justice.
"The US Justice Department said the indictment of Megrahi and another suspect remained pending and the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 remains open.”
Democratic Senator Robert Menendez said the deportation of al-Megrahi should be a condition of the US recognising a new Libyan government.
[The United States Government, along with that of the United Kingdom, proposed the UN Security Council resolutions that set up the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist. Both governments thereby undertook internationally binding obligations to comply with the legal processes thus set in motion. The United States cannot lawfully renounce those obligations either unilaterally or in conjunction with whatever new government it chooses to recognise in Libya. To have Abdelbaset Megrahi lawfully handed over to the US would require a further UN Security Council resolution. The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council could, of course, propose such a resolution. But would the other members support it? The US could also, naturally, simply ignore international legality (as it did, with the UK's supine support, in launching the invasion of Iraq) and seize Megrahi by force (with or without the connivance of a new Libyan regime).
The IntelliBriefs website yesterday published an interesting article entitled Libya, Kaddafi and Lockerbie. It incorporates articles from Tam Dalyell, Robert Fisk and others.
An article by Susan Lindauer on Lockerbie and Libya can be read here on The People's Voice website.]