US court overturns plea deal for 9/11 terrorist: death penalty awaits!

US court overturns plea deal for 9/11 terrorist: death penalty awaits!

On July 11, 2025, a significant ruling by an American appeals court caused a stir: a deal that would have allowed the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Cheikh Mohammed, to plead guilty and thus avoid the death penalty was annulled. The Washington justices' decision came by a majority of two to one, reinstating then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's previous August 2024 nullification. The latter had declared the agreements legally invalid, which has now been confirmed by the appeal court, as Le Monde reported.

Khalid Cheikh Mohammed, who was captured in 2003 and has been held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center since 2006, was charged with terrorism and the murder of nearly 3,000 people along with two co-defendants, Walid Bin Attash and Mustafa Al-Hawsawi. The idea behind the controversial plea deal was that Mohammed and his co-defendants would plead guilty in order to agree to a life sentence without the possibility of parole, thereby avoiding a lengthy trial. Details of the agreement were reportedly not made public, but it was believed that it was intended to take into account questions from victims of the attacks in order to provide some closure for the families.

A lengthy process

The years of military prosecution surrounding the September 11 attacks were marked by legal and logistical challenges. The charges against Mohammed and his fellow fighters have aroused not only national but also international interest. While some relatives of the victims saw this deal as a way to avoid further delay in a trial, others expressed the desire for an open trial to learn more about the background to the attacks, such as watson.ch notes.

The military judge who restored the agreement in November relied on defense arguments that the agreements were legally binding. The appeal court, however, criticized this approach and found that the military judge had made serious errors. Justices Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao emphasized that the American public - and especially the victims' families - deserve the right to a clear and transparent trial.

Reactions to the verdict

Opinions about the verdict are divided. Brett Eagleson, a relative of a 9/11 victim, called the decision a "good win, for now," but expressed concerns that a plea deal could wrap the issue "in a neat package." Supporters of the deal, such as Elizabeth Miller, have said that a trial is not realistic and that they are generally opposed to the death penalty, as AP News explains. The current decision could not only change the legal path for the accused, but also reignite public interest and debate about this case.