US court tilts Plea Deal for 9/11 terrorist: Death penalty is imminent!

US court tilts Plea Deal for 9/11 terrorist: Death penalty is imminent!

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - On July 11, 2025, an important judgment of an American Court of Appeal caused excitement: an agreement that should have made it possible for the alleged mastermind of the attacks of September 11, Khalid Cheikh Mohammed, to be guilty and thus avoid the death penalty. The Washington judge's decision came with a majority of two to one and restored the previous annulment of the then Minister of Defense Lloyd Austin from August 2024. The latter had declared the agreements to be legally invalid, which was now confirmed by the appellate body, such as Le Monde reported.

Khalid Cheikh Mohammed, who was captured in 2003 and has been in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp since 2006, was charged with two co-accused, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, terrorism and the murder of almost 3,000 people. The idea behind the controversial PLEA deal was that Mohammed and his co-matters would guilty in order to agree to a lifelong prison sentence without the prospect of probation and thus avoid a long legal process. According to reports, the details of the agreement would not have been made public, but it was assumed that it should take questions from victims of the attacks in order to offer the families a certain degree.

a lengthy process

The years of military persecution around the September 11 attacks was characterized by legal and logistical challenges. The indictment against Mohammed and his fellow fighter not only aroused national but also international interest. While some members of the victims saw this deal as a possibility to avoid a further delay of a process, others expressed the desire for an open procedure to learn more about the background of the attacks how [watson.ch] (https://www.watson.ch/fr/international/11-septembre/819875676-l-accord-de-plaider-coupable-du-cervovy-du-11-septembre-Annule notes.

The military judge, who restored the agreement in November, was based on the argument of the defense, which claimed that the agreements were legally binding. The Court of Appeal, on the other hand, criticized this approach and found that the military judge had made serious mistakes. The judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao emphasized that the American public - and especially the families of the victims - earn the right to a clear and transparent negotiation.

reactions to the judgment

The opinions about the judgment are split. Brett Eagleson, a relative of a 9/11 victim, described the decision as "good victory, for now", but expressed concerns that a Plea deal could pack the topic "in a pretty package". Supporter of the deal, such as Elizabeth Miller, expressed that a process was not realistic and that they are fundamentally averse to the death penalty, such as AP News. The current decision could not only change the legal way for the accused, but also re -infect the public interest and the debate about this case.