Controversy Surrounding Gaddafi Visit

It's that time of year again - September - when the annual United Nations General Assembly gathering of international leaders brings with it inevitable controversy surrounding the presence on US soil of some figure or another.  The usual suspects: Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Castro, have been replaced with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi - a man who has received little media attention for almost 20 years.

While visits by controversial heads of states often lead to heated political debates, protests, and calls for denial of entry visas, Gadhafi's potential stay here is marked with a particularly painful edge.  After the recent release by Scotland of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and his subsequent "hero's" welcome back home in Libya, it is rumored that Gadhafi may take up residence in New Jersey, where the embassy owns some property in Englewood.  Out of the 270 victims of the Lockerbie bombing, a large percentage came from New Jersey, and there has been a significant outcry of protest.  The Star Ledger ran a recent column arguing that arresting him as soon as he touches US soil would be justifiable.  

What would be the best course of action for the US?  The release of al-Megrahi has certainly reeked of political maneuvering by the British government to facilitate trade deals with Libya.  His release by Scottish authorities on "compassionate" grounds, was dubious at best, but it was the riotous welcome home  - obviously well orchestrated and funded - that tipped the scales towards almost universal outrage.  

As the United Nations' host country, the US is required to permit entry to virtually any representative of a member government.  Yet, one could argue that allowing Gadhafi entry would be to silently overlook the government of Libya's' potential involvement with this tragedy.