Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, identified as the chief orchestrator of the devastating attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, along with two of his conspirators have consented to plead guilty, potentially ending two decades of legal impasse. This decision, spawned from agreements with the Pentagon, may result in sentences ranging from time served to life imprisonment thus averting a possible execution on conviction. Wednesday’s landmark deal represents a significant milestone in a prolonged 20-year legal ordeal that has been riddled with obstacles.
Although the desire for capital punishment was a common sentiment among the grieving families of the approximated 3,000 victims of the 9/11 attacks, the dwindling chances of a trial made plea bargains appear as the most feasible form of closure. The recent evolution in the case is an overt acceptance by the U.S. Department of Defense that a trial seems improbable. In their correspondence with the families of the near 3000 casualties, prosecutors at Guantánamo emphasized their painstaking deliberation in opting for the settlement.
Mohammed, along with his co-conspirators Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, alleged designers of the 9/11 attack, will admit guilt to charges of murder and conspiracy under their plea agreement. Subject to final decisions, they are poised to serve life sentences. Negotiations between the parties had been unfolding for over two years, but came to a standstill due to disagreements over conditions presented by the Biden administration.
Among the critical points of contention between the defendants and the officials were human rights concerns such as solitary confinement and the need for medical attention to address persisting health challenges. The defendants, having undergone torturous interrogations in clandestine CIA establishments known as ‘black sites’, have significant health issues that demand attention. These matters add to the complexity of the case, not to mention the legality of evidence procured during these instances of torture.
There exists a long-standing legal debate over the constitutionality of evidence yielded from torturous practices, which has added layers of complexity to this case. A notable occurrence that likely influenced the negotiation proceedings was the decision to dismiss a confession in a different but related Guantánamo case. This separate case involved the bombing of the U.S. warship, the U.S.S. Cole, where the presiding judge refused to accept a confession on the basis that it was the direct result of torture.
While this breakthrough agreement signifies progress in this case, the question still remains about the physical location where these men will serve their sentences. There is an existing U.S. law that forbids entry to the country for the trio, even for the purpose of imprisonment in a supermax facility. Hence, their confinement may continue at the infamous Guantánamo Bay until their end.
Upon learning of the plea-deals, Terry Rockefeller, an affected member of the 9/11 community who had lost her younger sibling Laura in the World Trade Center attack, described the development as ‘the start of the conclusion of a painfully long journey.’ Highlighting the unappealable nature of these agreements, she expressed her relief about the prospect of judicial finality.
However, not all have reacted favorably to the plea-deals. Brett Eagleson, who was a teenager when his father perished in the World Trade Center disaster, voiced his trepidation through a public statement by the collective 9/11 Justice. His objections concerned the opacity surrounding the plea deals and the resulting impediment to truth-seeking efforts for the victims’ families. One significant aspect of this quest for truth involves uncovering Saudi Arabia’s supposed role in the attacks.
As an element of addressing such concerns, part of the settlement enforces a condition mandating the key conspirators of the 9/11 attacks to provide victims’ families with clarity regarding their reasoning and planning behind the attacks. The admission process could commence as earliest by the following week said Guantánamo prosecutors, however the final sentencing hearing isn’t slated to occur until at least September 2025, thus extending the case for another year.
In addition to the trio, there are two more defendants associated with the 9/11 attacks whose cases remain pending. One of them is Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial just last year. The main aversion of the other defendant, Ammar al-Baluchi, towards settling is largely due to the agreement’s lack of assurance for post-torture medical assistance, according to his counsel, Alka Pradhan.
Irrespective of these complications, Scott Roehm, a director at the Center for Victims of Torture, lauds the plea agreements as ‘a strikingly important accomplishment.’ He interprets it as a crucial stride towards closure, a much-needed step for victims’ families. More broadly, Roehm views it as the only viable route to end the drawn-out and troubled chapter of the military commissions.
This case and its long-running nature represents the numerous challenges encountered in the pursuit of justice for crimes of this magnitude. The recent plea agreements are indicative of a gradual, albeit arduous, progression towards resolution. While it may not provide the recompense demanded by all, it marks a significant stride towards closing a painful chapter in America’s history.
In the final analysis, this poignant chapter of our history demonstrates the fragility and complexity of justice. The plea agreements are a testament to the painstaking process faced by the judiciary, government officials, victims, and their families. Despite its inherent imperfections, this resolution, at the end of a twenty-year legal impasse, infuses a glimmer of hope for closure and serves as a clear sign of moving forward in seeking justice.