By Crispin Sartwell

There seems to be some disagreement as to whether Libya really has offered to pay $10 million dollars to each of the families of 270 people killed in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

On Wednesday, Libya's United Nations mission disavowed the proposal. But lawyers for the victims say the Libyan government knows all about it and has been negotiating with them in good faith. (And it's possible that, once they had a figure, the lawyers, no dummies, went public with it to force Libya's hand.)

Well, let's assume the offer and the money turn out to be real. That would raise a number of important issues.

According to reports, the big condition is that payment wouldn't happen unless the United States and United Nations lifted sanctions against Libya. Thus, it amounts to a form of international bribery [I don't see it as blackmail, exactly, cause the money goes the other way there], repulsive on many moral grounds. Worse, so far the offer is not accompanied by an admission of guilt, though it follows the conviction of a Libyan intelligence official in the plot to down the plane. And to a lot of people, a settlement like this is tantamount to a confession.

On the other hand, the government of Libya is still run by the people - especially, obviously, Moammar Gadhafi - who encouraged Lockerbie and other acts of terrorism.

But there's two further issues few are really facing.

The first is an issue for the victims' families: Should you take the money? I've been wondering whether, if someone in my family had been killed under circumstances like these, I'd take it. And I've been thinking that I would.

Why? Not because $10 million is equivalent to the lives of those killed, or to my suffering. No way. But my suffering might very well make me feel entitled to a big payment someway from someone.

There's another reason to take the money: Because large payments can make things better. The case isn't exactly like, let us say, product liability. You make a defective piano that collapses on me, paralyzing me permanently. I sue you; we settle and you do not explicitly admit guilt. In this case it is likely that you're not a straight-up criminal; we hope and believe that you didn't intend to make a dangerous product. You weren't out there trying to kill people. If we found out that you were, we'd put you out of business and try you for murder.

But we'd also use your money to compensate the victims of your vicious instruments. You'd be subject to civil suits from your victims, and your money would be disbursed. Even though the Lockerbie case is a case of murder, not negligence, there is a parallel. You have caused suffering and death. Even if you don't admit to anything, we'll still use your money to make things better. The money will make a concrete difference in the lives of families.

The second question is for our government: Do we trust Libya to stop support terrorism if we lift the sanctions? Well, no, we don't, and we never have. Ronald Reagan despised Gadhafi, and we attacked Libya in 1986, following accusations that Libya had sponsored the bombing of a Berlin nightclub. On that occasion, we lobbed missiles into Gadhafi's residences, and although we did not explicitly declare our intention to kill him, we certainly would not have mourned his death at our hands. According to him, we killed his adopted daughter, among others.

Apparently, we have long since given up any direct attempt to punish Gadhafi personally or remove his regime from power. Heck, he didn't even make the axis of evil in Bush's state of the union address.

Credit this to cowardice or to realpolitik, to laziness or diplomacy. Whatever, we're not at war with Libya, and we're not even punishing its government very elaborately or very effectively.

If Libya has withdrawn its support for terrorism, or will, and if its government is willing to come across with the bucks, let's take them and relax the sanctions. Maybe the offer signals a desire for rapprochement between Libya and the rest of the world. We're need as many friends as we can get right now, and we are seriously in need of anyone who can contribute to the isolation of al-Qaeda and similar organizations.

This offer, if it's real, would be by any standards substantial, and it may well be an expression, if not of contrition, then at least of a rethinking of policy. Why offer a compensation package this big if you're contemplating a new round of terrorism at the same time?

Of course, maybe Libya is doing just that. If in our best judgment Libya intends to continue to sponsor murder, then we ought not to touch their money. If we believe Gadhafi is still sponsoring terrorists, then we ought to declare war. But if we don't, then let him pay.

Crispin Sartwell writes from Railroad, Pa. Contact him through www.crispinsartwell.com