Judge Reinstates Plea Deals for Alleged 9/11 Mastermind

In a landmark decision, a U.S. military judge has reinstated plea deals for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two co-defendants accused of masterminding the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Air Force Col. Matthew McCall ruled that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin did not have the authority to overturn the plea agreements, which could now allow the defendants to admit guilt in exchange for avoiding the death penalty, according to an unnamed government official.
The order has not yet been publicly posted, and McCall’s decision may still face further challenges.
The plea deals, approved by top officials at the Guantanamo Bay military commission, had initially been struck between government prosecutors and defense attorneys, sparing Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi from the risk of the death penalty.
However, following the agreements’ disclosure this summer, Austin swiftly issued a directive to nullify them, arguing that such significant decisions in cases tied to capital punishment should fall under his jurisdiction. Austin’s move drew intense scrutiny from lawmakers and raised questions over the limits of the Defense Secretary’s power.
McCall’s ruling challenges Austin’s intervention, asserting that the timing of his order—coming after the deals were approved—was “fatal.”
According to a report by Lawdragon, McCall argued that allowing Austin’s order to stand would effectively grant defense secretaries “absolute veto power” over the Guantanamo court’s decisions, undermining judicial independence.
The September 11 case has faced years of delays and legal challenges, including disputes over the admissibility of confessions obtained during the defendants’ years of detention and alleged torture by the CIA.
McCall’s ruling marks a significant step forward in a prosecution plagued by prolonged pretrial hearings, legal entanglements, and mounting frustration from victims’ families and the public alike.
While some family members of 9/11 victims continue to seek a death penalty trial, legal experts suggest that even if the cases go to trial, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will likely review aspects of any verdict on appeal.
This could include issues such as the CIA’s destruction of interrogation videos and whether the “clean team” FBI interrogations—conducted without torture—remain legally admissible despite prior CIA involvement.
The Pentagon has not yet posted McCall’s decision on the official Guantanamo commission website, though a spokesperson, Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, confirmed that the ruling is under review.
For now, the plea agreements stand, potentially offering a resolution in a case that has been fraught with procedural and ethical challenges for over two decades.
This development marks a pivotal moment in the handling of one of America’s most significant criminal prosecutions. The full impact of McCall’s decision remains to be seen as officials, legal experts, and the public await further proceedings in this high-profile case.
This article includes reporting from The Associated Press