In a seismic ruling that cuts through years of legal fog, a federal appeals court has declared that the Secretary of Defense can tear up plea deals shielding three 9/11 masterminds from the ultimate punishment.
According to the Daily Caller, on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided that the death penalty is back on the table for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, reversing a lower court’s stance and reigniting a fierce debate over justice for the worst terrorist attack on American soil.
Let’s rewind to July 2024, when these three terrorists, accused of orchestrating the September 11 attacks, struck plea deals under the Biden administration to plead guilty to war crimes and dodge execution.
Days after those agreements were inked, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stepped in with a decisive move to void them, arguing that such leniency was unacceptable for crimes of this magnitude. A lower court judge initially slapped down Austin’s effort in December, claiming he acted too late to unravel the deals.
But the D.C. Circuit disagreed, with Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao penning the majority opinion, calling this a “rare case” that demanded reversal of the lower court’s overreach.
“The government has demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to relief in this case,” wrote Millett and Rao, driving home their belief that the Defense Secretary’s authority trumps prior promises.
Yet, let’s not pretend this logic is bulletproof—progressive critics might argue it’s a stretch to let one official override deals already in motion, though justice for 9/11 victims surely demands the heaviest consequences.
Judge Robert Wilkins, in dissent, pushed back, noting it wasn’t “clear and indisputable” that the lower court got it wrong in blocking Austin’s reversal.
Wilkins’ hesitation mirrors a broader divide, but for many Americans, especially those who lost loved ones on 9/11, the idea of plea deals feels like a betrayal of accountability.
Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York didn’t mince words, blasting the original agreements as a “shameful plea deal” that undermines the gravity of the attacks.
While Lawler’s frustration resonates with those tired of soft-on-crime policies, one wonders if his outrage might overlook the messy realities of military tribunals—still, his point about justice stings with truth.
Lawler went further, introducing the Justice for 9/11 Act to ban such plea arrangements in the future, a bold move to ensure no terrorist slips through on a technicality.
That bill, read twice and sent to the House Armed Services Committee, remains stalled—a frustrating reminder of how even righteous causes can get bogged down in bureaucratic quicksand.
Meanwhile, the court’s makeup adds another layer, with Millett and Wilkins hailing from the Obama era, and Rao, a Trump appointee, tipping the scales—a subtle nod to how judicial appointments shape outcomes on issues as monumental as this.
