Introduction to the Case
A divided federal appeals court on Friday threw out an agreement that would have allowed accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to plead guilty in a deal sparing him the risk of execution for al-Qaida’s 2001 attacks.
Background of the Plea Deal
The decision by a panel of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., undoes an attempt to wrap up more than two decades of military prosecution beset by legal and logistical troubles. It signals there will be no quick end to the long struggle by the U.S. military and successive administrations to bring to justice the man charged with planning one of the deadliest attacks ever on the United States.
Details of the Agreement
The deal, negotiated over two years and approved by military prosecutors and the Pentagon’s senior official for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a year ago, stipulated life sentences without parole for Mohammed and two co-defendants. Mohammed is accused of developing and directing the plot to crash hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Another of the hijacked planes flew into a field in Pennsylvania.
Conditions of the Plea Deal
The men also would have been obligated to answer any lingering questions that families of the victims have about the attacks.
Repudiation of the Deal
But then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin repudiated the deal, saying a decision on the death penalty in an attack as grave as Sept. 11 should only be made by the defense secretary.
Legal Proceedings
Attorneys for the defendants had argued that the agreement was already legally in effect and that Austin, who served under President Joe Biden, acted too late to try to throw it out. A military judge at Guantanamo and a military appeals panel agreed with the defense lawyers. But, by a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found Austin acted within his authority and faulted the military judge’s ruling.
Court Ruling
The panel had previously put the agreement on hold while it considered the appeal, first filed by the Biden administration and then continued under President Donald Trump. “Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the ‘families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out.’ The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment,” Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao wrote. Millett was an appointee of President Barack Obama while Rao was appointed by Trump.
Dissenting Opinion
In a dissent, Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, wrote, “The government has not come within a country mile of proving clearly and indisputably that the Military Judge erred.”
Conclusion
The ruling marks a significant turn in the long-standing case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, indicating that the legal process will continue without the plea deal. This decision reflects the complexity and the gravity of the charges against Mohammed, ensuring that the case will remain a focal point of legal and public attention.
FAQs
- Q: What was the nature of the plea deal for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
A: The plea deal would have allowed Mohammed to plead guilty in exchange for life sentences without parole for him and two co-defendants, sparing them the risk of execution. - Q: Why was the plea deal repudiated?
A: Then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin repudiated the deal, believing that the decision on the death penalty should be made by the defense secretary, given the gravity of the Sept. 11 attacks. - Q: What was the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit?
A: The court ruled 2-1 that Austin acted within his authority in repudiating the plea deal, thereby throwing it out. - Q: What are the implications of this ruling?
A: The ruling means that the case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will continue without the plea deal, potentially leading to a trial and the possibility of the death penalty.
