Date: August 1, 2024
In a significant development, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin Attash, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al-Hawsawi—three men long held at Guantanamo Bay as suspects in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks—have reached a pre-trial plea agreement, the U.S. Department of Defense announced today.
While the exact terms of the agreement have not been publicly disclosed, it is reported that the three men will plead guilty to charges related to the attacks in exchange for the prosecution agreeing not to pursue the death penalty. This resolution comes after years of legal delays and prolonged detention without trial.
The plea deal, which could be formalized in a military court as soon as next week, aims to address the complexities surrounding the case, including the controversial interrogation techniques used on the detainees. These techniques, which critics argue amounted to torture, have raised concerns about the admissibility of evidence.
The deal has been met with mixed reactions from the families of the victims and various stakeholders. Brett Eagleson, president of 9/11 Justice, voiced deep dissatisfaction, citing a lack of transparency and urging further investigation into the potential involvement of Saudi Arabia in the attacks. He and others have expressed frustration over the perceived leniency of the plea deal.
Terry Strada, national chair of 9/11 Families United, described the deal as a “gut-punch” and criticized it as a victory for the accused rather than for the victims and their families. Strada emphasized that the deal undermines the pursuit of justice and accountability.
The plea agreement follows a lengthy legal process marked by delays and complications. The detainees have been held at Guantanamo Bay since their capture in 2003, with the trial process being hampered by legal challenges and debates over interrogation methods.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, believed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, was subjected to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques, which have since been banned. These methods have fueled legal and ethical debates about their impact on the case.
National security analyst Peter Bergen described the plea deal as “the least bad deal in the real world,” acknowledging the challenges and compromises involved in reaching an agreement. The deal reflects an effort to balance the need for justice with the practicalities of a protracted legal battle.
The 9/11 attacks, which resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths, remain one of the most significant and devastating events in U.S. history. The subsequent “War on Terror” led to military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, reshaping U.S. foreign policy and national security strategies.
The plea deal has also sparked political debate. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell condemned the agreement, arguing that it represents a failure to uphold justice and protect American interests. The deal has intensified discussions about the handling of detainees and the broader implications for U.S. counterterrorism policies.
The Saudi connection to the hijackers, with fifteen of the nineteen attackers being Saudi nationals, continues to be a contentious issue. Families of the victims are pursuing legal action against the Saudi government, which denies any involvement in the attacks.
As the plea deal moves towards finalization, it remains to be seen how it will affect ongoing legal and political discussions. The focus will likely shift to the impact of the deal on the broader context of U.S. counterterrorism efforts and the quest for justice for the victims of 9/11.
