Controversy, dilemma set in as US offers 9/11 suspects plea deals

By Al Mayadeen English
Source: Agencies
27 Aug 2023 09:31
1 Shares

Certain families of those killed in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, express concerns that going without a trial could mean that the truth may never come out.

A team of rescue workers walk in front of the remains of the base of the World Trade Center in New York after the September 11, 2001 attacks. (AFP)

Prosecutors have presented a proposal in a recent letter, offering a potential resolution for the case that has long been mired in pre-trial complexities within the Guantanamo military commissions. This initiative is allegedly aimed at providing the families of the nearly 3,000 victims with a viable route to closure, considering that the case has been stagnating without a clear conclusion for an extended period.

Certain families of those who lost their lives in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, as well as victims, express concerns that going without a trial could mean that the entire truth would never come out.

Others contend that as years go by, more individuals pass away without witnessing justice for their deceased family members. Additionally, there's an increasing risk that the aging defendants themselves might pass away before being proven guilty.

A group called "September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows," which supports the plea deal, claims that it is after justice and accountability. It cites that too many individuals within the group have passed away over the past two decades without achieving either as the pretext for their support for the initiative.

According to this group, plea agreements, if reached promptly, would offer a sense of finality. This would encompass concluding the 9/11 military commission, explicit admissions of guilt, and life sentences devoid of the possibility of parole or appeal.

However, a different perspective is presented by Dennis McGinley from the organization "9/11 Justice". He argues that the proposed deal would not reveal the complete story behind the attack that led to his brother Danny's death in the south tower of the World Trade Center.

McGinley suggests that the purpose of the deal is to prevent a trial where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, described as the mastermind behind 9/11 and known as "KSM", would potentially provide crucial information.

This comes a week after the Pentagon and FBI informed relatives of some of the thousands killed in the September 11 terror attacks that the alleged architect behind the attack may be granted a plea bargain after two decades of a lengthy trial.

The letter obtained by the Associated Press detailed that repeated delays and disputes, including their torture at the hands of CIA agents, have slowed the prosecution process of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others currently held in Guantanamo Bay with no prosecution date in sight.

Mohammed was the alleged mastermind behind the attack on the US, with the US 9/11 Commission claiming that he received authorization from Osama bin Laden to undertake the terror attacks. The other four defendants are accused of allegedly aiding and abetting Mohammed in numerous methods.

Tainted evidence: A fishy plot

The proposition, delineated in a communication dated August 1 from the office of the chief prosecutor overseeing the Pentagon-administered military tribunals, has been under development for two years in relation to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Ammar Al-Baluchi, Walid bin Attash, Ramzi bin Al-Shibh, and Mustafa Al-Hawsawi.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged orchestrator of the September 11, 2001 attacks, could potentially be sentenced to life imprisonment but avoid the death penalty through a plea deal currently being deliberated in the Guantanamo military tribunal. Each of these individuals has been detained for over 16 years at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They are among the last 30 detainees from a previous total of nearly 800 individuals held extrajudicially by the United States following the events of 9/11.

Formally arraigned in 2012, the case has been entrenched in disputes from the outset, revolving around prosecutors' intention to employ evidence that defense lawyers assert was obtained through systematic torture orchestrated by the CIA.

The letter, without explicitly stating so, acknowledges the prosecutors' inability to provide a timeline for the commencement of a comprehensive trial, if it ever takes place.

As outlined in the proposed arrangement, the accused individuals would concede culpability for their actions and plead guilty to the charges leveled against them in exchange for avoiding the death penalty. The letter outlines that the defendants would need to consent to a "stipulation of facts," detailing the intricacies of the September 11 plot and their respective roles in it.

While the prosecutors have indicated that the deal hasn't been definitively settled, the letter does confirm that such an arrangement seems to be the direction the case is heading.

Recent developments have heightened the possibility of additional delays, with a military judge in a separate Guantanamo case recently rejecting confessions tainted by torture.

It is worth noting that a military medical board has concluded that Ramzi bin Al-Shibh, a suspect accused of conspiring in the planning of the September 11 attacks, suffers from a mental disorder that renders him incompetent to participate in the trial or enter a guilty plea in the capital punishment case, The New York Times reported, citing a report filed with his trial judge last Friday.

Challenges of abandoning death penalty: Opinions, closure perspectives divided

The prospect of excluding the death penalty from the case could potentially trigger strong emotional reactions not only from families of victims but also from Americans nationwide, where deep-seated anger persists due to the CIA's fishy involvement.

New York Congressman Mike Lawler criticized President Joe Biden for the proposed deal, expressing that "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 perpetrators should never be given a plea deal and should face the full measure of justice for their actions—the death penalty."

However, Terry Rockefeller, a member of the Peaceful Tomorrows group, countered that the deal presents the best opportunity for families to find closure, knowing that defendants would have no avenue for appeal. Rockefeller, whose sister died in the World Trade Center, revealed that during private meetings earlier in the year, prosecutors were unable to provide an estimated trial duration.

She underscored the limitations of the military commissions, labeling them as a largely ineffective system. Furthermore, she argued that due to the torture-related concerns, a trial would unlikely lead to a death penalty verdict.

Conversely, Dennis McGinley from the group 9/11 Justice asserted that the nature of punishment is not a primary concern for him at this juncture.

He contended that a settlement could lead to classified information about the attacks,

McGinley's perspective leans toward a trial, one in which all evidence would be declassified, presenting the most viable avenue for families to attain justice after enduring two decades of anticipation.

He lamented the experiences of the 9/11 community, stating that they have endured mistreatment and exploitation by the government over the last 22 years, a situation he likened to a form of "cruel and unusual punishment."