A Dramatic Turnaround: Death Penalties Back on the Table
In a jaw-dropping reversal, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has axed the plea deal that would have spared three key 9/11 defendants from the death penalty in exchange for their confessions. This Friday move comes just two days after the Pentagon stirred up a hornet’s nest by announcing the agreement—an arrangement that enraged 9/11 victims who demand full accountability and the revelation of new facts about the attacks.
Austin explained his decision in a memo to Susan Escallier, a retired Army brigadier general and military lawyer overseeing the Guantanamo prosecutions. He wrote, “In light of the significance of the decision to enter into pre-trial agreements with the accused, responsibility for such a decision should rest with me as the superior convening authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2009.” This puts the possibility of death penalties back on the table, much to the chagrin of the defendants.
Two Decades Later: Still No Trial in Sight
Nearly 23 years after the attacks that claimed 2,977 lives and altered history, the US government has yet to conduct a trial for the 9/11 defendants held at the US Navy base in Guantanamo, Cuba. Recent years have been bogged down by pre-trial clashes over the admissibility of statements made by detainees who endured the US torture regime.
Austin’s decision throws a wrench into what seemed like a potential resolution to the endless pre-trial motions and discovery battles. The plea bargain offered a way out by avoiding death penalties in exchange for admissions of guilt, which would likely have resulted in life sentences measured in millennia.
Civilian Courts vs. Military Tribunals: A Legal Quagmire
The US government has efficiently prosecuted numerous non-9/11 terror cases in civilian federal courts, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case. However, the Bush-Cheney administration’s decision to prosecute 9/11 defendants as “enemy combatants” via military tribunals has mired the pursuit of justice in a legal quagmire.
Adding to the complexity is the Bush-Cheney regime’s decision to torture the accused, complicating the legal process with debates over the admissibility of statements obtained under duress. The recently nixed plea deal was seen as a way to circumvent these issues and move forward.
The Death Penalty Debate: Closure vs. Justice
Many Americans, especially family members of those killed on 9/11, understandably want to see the alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi face the death penalty. However, defense attorneys argue that the government’s use of torture should factor into the sentencing decisions, making death penalties far from assured. Mohammed alone was waterboarded 183 times.
While some argue for a swift end to the protracted legal proceedings, many 9/11 family members and survivors hope full trials will shed light on potential links between the 9/11 plot and Saudi government officials.
The Saudi Connection: Pursuing Truth and Accountability
The same day the plea deal was announced, 9/11 plaintiffs were in a federal courtroom in New York. Judge George Daniels heard arguments over Saudi Arabia’s motion to dismiss a long-running civil suit seeking to hold the kingdom liable for aiding the hijackers. The plaintiffs allege that Saudi officials provided logistical and financial support to the attackers through a network operating out of the Saudi embassy in Washington and the consulate in Los Angeles.
As they pursue this case at a glacial pace, plaintiffs’ lawyers contend with both the Saudi and US governments. The latter has thwarted attempts to obtain FBI files related to the attacks. On Wednesday, 9/11 Justice, a grassroots group advocating for transparency, expressed alarm over the plea arrangement. Brett Eagleson, the group’s president and son of a 9/11 victim, stated, “Our primary concern remains access to these individuals for information. These plea deals should not perpetuate a system of closed-door agreements, where crucial information is hidden without giving the families of the victims the chance to learn the full truth.”
Justice Delayed: A Frustrating Wait for 9/11 Families
Jury selection for the military trial in Guantanamo isn’t expected to start until at least 2026, with the trial projected to last upwards of a year and a half. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied, especially for the survivors and families of 9/11 victims.
In the end, Austin’s decision underscores the ongoing struggle for justice and accountability. The quest for truth continues, with victims’ families hoping that a full trial will finally illuminate the dark corners of the 9/11 plot and bring some measure of closure to their decades-long ordeal.
Free Speech and Alternative Media are under attack by the Deep State. We need your support to survive. Please Contribute via GoGetFunding
