A military judge in the United States has ruled that plea deals made with the accused perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks are valid, overturning a decision by the country’s defense secretary. This ruling, made by Air Force Colonel Matthew McCall, means that the three men involved could face life imprisonment, rather than the death penalty, as part of their plea deals. The three men at the center of the case include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks, along with Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, who are accused of being accomplices.
The judge’s ruling comes after Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin rescinded these plea deals on August 2, 2024. This decision came two days after a senior Pentagon official had signed the agreements. Despite this, Colonel McCall determined that while Austin had the right to supervise the plea process during its early stages, the defense secretary did not have the legal authority to nullify the plea deals once they had been made.
The ruling has significant implications for the trial, as it paves the way for the accused men to appear in court and enter their pleas, although the judge has yet to set a date for these proceedings. The Pentagon has acknowledged the ruling but has not provided further commentary on the judge’s decision, and prosecutors have also remained silent.
The case has been ongoing since 2012, when Mohammed and four other men were charged with conspiring in the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. However, the legal process has been delayed for years due to issues surrounding the torture of the defendants while in CIA custody. The treatment of these men has been central to the legal challenges, with pretrial hearings expected to focus on whether the confessions made by the defendants in 2007 were coerced through torture or made voluntarily.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Pakistani national, was one of the most trusted members of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden’s inner circle. He was captured in Pakistan in March 2003 and spent three years in secret CIA prisons before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2006. Walid bin Attash, a Saudi of Yemeni descent, is accused of training two of the hijackers involved in the attacks. Like Mohammed, bin Attash was captured in 2003 and held in CIA prisons. Mustafa al-Hawsawi, who is accused of managing the finances for the 9/11 plot, was arrested in Pakistan in March 2003 and, like the others, was transferred to Guantanamo after his detention in secret prisons.
The decision by the military judge is a significant step in a case that has been plagued by years of legal and procedural complications. One of the central issues has been the defendants’ treatment in CIA custody, which has led to protracted litigation over the use of evidence obtained through torture. The case is expected to continue for several more years before any final verdicts or sentences are reached. Even if a conclusion is reached at the trial level, it is likely that the U.S. Court of Appeals will be involved in reviewing many of the legal issues raised by the case, including concerns about the destruction of videos documenting the interrogations.
In addition to the three defendants who reached plea deals, Ammar al-Baluchi, another individual charged in the 9/11 plot, has not yet reached a plea agreement and is scheduled for pretrial hearings. Ramzi bin al-Shibh, another defendant, was found to be mentally unfit to stand trial or enter a plea deal as of September 2024.
The ongoing legal proceedings reflect the complexity of trying individuals accused of such high-profile acts of terrorism. The extended timeline of the case underscores the difficulties in prosecuting terrorism-related offenses, especially when the defendants have been subjected to controversial and secretive interrogation practices. The trial is expected to remain in the spotlight as it moves through the military judicial system, with a likely appeal process to follow.
The ruling provides clarity regarding the validity of the plea agreements but also highlights the legal challenges that continue to surround the cases of the accused 9/11 plotters. The question of whether the defendants’ confessions were made under duress or voluntarily remains a central issue in the case, with experts on both sides preparing to testify in the coming months. The prolonged legal proceedings are a testament to the complexity of handling terrorism cases, especially when they involve such sensitive issues as torture and the treatment of detainees.
