A Question of Ethics—Terrorism. On December 21, 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded 31,000 feet in the air over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 passengers and crew on board and 11 people on the ground. Among those killed was Roger Hurst, a U.S. citizen. An investigation determined that a portable radio-cassette player packed in a brown Samsonite suitcase smuggled onto the plane was the source of the explosion.

The explosive device was constructed with a digital timer specially made for, and bought by, Libya. Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi, a Libyan government official and an employee of the Libyan Arab Airline (LAA), was convicted by the Scottish High Court of Justiciary on criminal charges that he planned and executed the bombing in association with members of the Jamahiriya Security Organization (JSO)—an agency of the former Libyan government that performed security and intelligence functions—or the Libyan military.

Members of the victims’ families filed a suit in a U.S. federal district court against the JSO, the LAA, Al-Megrahi, and others.

The plaintiffs claimed violations of U.S. federal law, including the Anti-Terrorism Act, and state law, including the intentional infliction of emotional distress. [Hurst v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 474 F.Supp.2d 19 (D.D.C.

2007)] (See pages 226–227.)

1. Under what doctrine, codified in which federal statute, might the defendants have claimed to be immune from the jurisdiction of a U.S. court? Should this law include an exception for “state-sponsored terrorism”? Why or why not?

2. The defendants agreed to pay $2.7 billion, or $10 million per victim, to settle all claims for “compensatory death damages.”

The families of eleven victims, including Hurst, were excluded from the settlement because they were “not wrongful death beneficiaries under applicable state law.” These plaintiffs continued the suit. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Should the motion have been granted on the ground that the settlement barred the plaintiffs’ claims? Explain.