A US federal appeals court has rejected a plea deal that would have allowed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several co-defendants to avoid the death penalty by pleading guilty. The 2–1 decision, made in Washington DC, would have given the men life sentences without the chance of parole.
Mohammed, captured in 2003, is held at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. Authorities accuse him of planning the 11 September 2001 attacks, where hijackers crashed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing nearly 3,000 people.
Families split over the agreement
The proposed deal took two years to negotiate and received approval from military prosecutors and a top Pentagon official at Guantanamo. Under its terms, relatives of victims could ask Mohammed questions, and he would need to answer fully and truthfully, according to his lawyers.
Families expressed mixed views. Some supported the deal, hoping it would provide answers and bring closure. Others opposed it, arguing that a public trial would better serve justice and reveal more about the attacks.
Torture allegations complicate the case
The case has faced long delays, partly due to concerns over evidence obtained through torture. Mohammed spent three years in secret CIA prisons after his arrest in Pakistan. During that time, interrogators subjected him to waterboarding 183 times, along with sleep deprivation and forced nudity.
In 2023, the Biden administration announced plea agreements for Mohammed and three others. However, Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin blocked the deals two days later, stating that only he had the authority to approve them.
Court sides with Defence Secretary
A military court initially ruled against Austin’s move, which brought the plea deal back into consideration. But on Friday, the appeals court decided that Austin had acted within his legal powers.
Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao wrote that Austin had taken proper authority. They agreed with his decision to allow the public and victims’ families to witness a military trial. “The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment,” they said, as reported by the Associated Press.
Judge Robert Wilkins disagreed. He argued that the government had failed to show that the military judge made a clear legal error.
