9/11 Mastermind's Plea Deal Canceled, Trial to Continue

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., has overturned a plea deal that would have spared Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, the death penalty. The agreement, which had been in development for two years, aimed to resolve a legal case that has spanned over two decades.

The now-voided deal would have sentenced Mohammed and two other individuals to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In exchange, they would have pleaded guilty and answered questions from the families of the victims. Mohammed, a Pakistani national, is accused of orchestrating the attacks involving hijacked planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

This ruling ensures the continuation of the lengthy military trial at Guantanamo Bay, with no immediate resolution in sight. The proposed plea deal had divided the families of the 9/11 victims. Some believed it offered the best path to answers and closure, while others insisted that a full trial was necessary to achieve justice and uncover the complete truth. The deal included a provision for the accused to respond to any remaining questions from the families.

However, former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin rejected the plea deal last year, asserting that the decision regarding the death penalty in a case of this magnitude should rest with the defense secretary. Lawyers for the accused argued that the deal was legally finalized and that Austin's intervention was untimely. A military judge and an appeals court at Guantanamo Bay initially sided with the defense.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C., however, disagreed, ruling 2-1 that Austin acted within his authority. The majority opinion stated that Austin was justified in intervening, citing the public's right to a full trial. Two judges, appointed by Obama and Trump, concurred with this decision. The dissenting judge, also appointed by Obama, argued that the government failed to demonstrate any errors made by the military judge.

Brett Eagleson, whose father perished in the attacks, supported the court's decision, arguing that plea deals can lead to cases being quietly resolved without full accountability. He also expressed skepticism about the honesty of the accused in answering the families' questions, stating that a trial is the only way to seek truth.

Conversely, Elizabeth Miller, who was six years old when her firefighter father died in the attacks, supported the plea deal. She expressed concern that the trial, which has yet to begin in 2025, might never happen. She also opposes the death penalty, which further influenced her support for the agreement.