« Split Fourth Circuit panel reverses denial of sentence reduction motion and orders 20-year reduction based on stacked § 924(c) | Main | Highlighting how even the "godfather of progressive prosecutors" has struggled to advance re-sentencing plans »

August 17, 2023

Federal prosecutions alert families that possible plea deals with 9/11 defendants may preclude death penalty

As reported in this AP piece, the "suspected architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and his fellow defendants may never face the death penalty under plea agreements now under consideration to bring an end to their more than decadelong prosecution, the Pentagon and FBI have advised families of some of the thousands killed." Here is more:

The notice, made in a letter that was sent to several of the families and obtained by The Associated Press, comes 1 1/2 years after military prosecutors and defense lawyers began exploring a negotiated resolution to the case.

The prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others held at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been troubled by repeated delays and legal disputes, especially over the legal ramifications of the interrogation under torture that the men initially underwent while in CIA custody. No trial date has been set.

“The Office of the Chief Prosecutor has been negotiating and is considering entering into pre-trial agreements,” or PTAs, the letter said. It told the families that while no plea agreement “has been finalized, and may never be finalized, it is possible that a PTA in this case would remove the possibility of the death penalty.”

Some relatives of the nearly 3,000 people killed outright in the terror attacks expressed outrage over the prospect of ending the case short of a verdict. The military prosecutors pledged to take their views into consideration and present them to the military authorities who would make the final decision on accepting any plea agreement.

The letter, dated Aug. 1, was received by at least some of the family members only this week. It asks them to respond by Monday to the FBI’s victim services division with any comments or questions about the possibility of such a plea agreement. The FBI had no comment Wednesday on the letter....

Jim Riches, who lost his firefighter son Jimmy in 9/11, went to Guantanamo for pretrial hearings in 2009. He remains deeply frustrated that the case remains unresolved 14 years later.  He said he laughed bitterly when he opened the government’s letter Monday. “How can you have any faith in it?” Riches asked.  The update “gives us a little hope,” he said, but justice still seems far off.

“No matter how many letters they send, until I see it, I won’t believe it,” said Riches, a retired deputy fire chief in New York City.  He said he initially was open to the use of military tribunals but now feels that the process is failing and that the 9/11 defendants should be tried in civilian court.

The Obama administration at one point sought to do so, but the idea was shelved because of opposition from some victims’ relatives and members of Congress and city officials’ concerns about security costs.  As the 22nd anniversary of the attacks approaches, “those guys are still alive. Our children are dead,” Riches said.

August 17, 2023 at 11:10 AM | Permalink

Comments

What a joke. These guys were illegal combatants--execute them by hanging.

Posted by: federalist | Aug 17, 2023 11:29:24 AM

These people should look at the bright side---at least they aren't getting notified by the slimy Tommy Vietor that their sons' murderer, Musa Ali Daqduq, is getting sprung.

Posted by: federalist | Aug 17, 2023 11:31:09 AM

And by the way, Doug, Obama's actions with respect to Musa Ali Daqduq were despicable.

Posted by: federalist | Aug 17, 2023 11:34:06 AM

A legal system that turns itself into a pretzel and, 20 years later, still can't unwind itself, needs to stop with procedural issues and move on to substantive justice. Procedure is important, and deserves considerable investment, but there has to be an end at some point and a move toward giving these people what their bloodthirsty actions earned. That point was reached long ago in this case.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 17, 2023 12:42:49 PM

https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2023/08/17/watch-female-officer-forced-to-fight-for-her-life-against-a-crazed-criminal-thanks-to-leftist-policies-n2162736

Here's something for you Doug.

Posted by: federalist | Aug 17, 2023 12:54:50 PM

Again, federalist, you should start your own blog/substack if you have particular issues you are particularly eager to discuss your own particular way.

As for this new story you link, it seems to involve an honorably discharged veteran who served in Iraq and suffers with mental health issues explaining his aggressive behavior by complaining about police harassing him at his house multiple times. I do not think you are citing this case as an example when you think an individual was justified in physically attacking law enforcement, but maybe it is. The Red State article you cite is unclear about the veteran's criminal history, though I agree with its sentiment that, especially for veterans with clear mental health issues, states ought to provide more "services to help them outside of prison."

Posted by: Doug B | Aug 17, 2023 2:57:05 PM

Re: Daqduq, recall we had a discussion about the relative morality of Trump vs. Obama.

Re: The Red State article, feels like a worthy discussion about violence, mental illness etc.

Posted by: federalist | Aug 17, 2023 3:07:16 PM

correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the problem start with the Republicans' refusing to allow the terrorists to prosecuted in federal criminal court in Manhattan?

Posted by: anon | Aug 17, 2023 3:09:02 PM

Yes, anon, as you'll recall, bringing those guys to America soil would have given them rights, and possibly the ability to walk the streets (recall Zadvydas v. Davis) and then Kennedy plus the Gang of Four screwed everything up.

So this is pretty much a 'rat problem Thanks guys.

Posted by: federalist | Aug 17, 2023 5:49:05 PM

anon --

"correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the problem start with the Republicans' refusing to allow the terrorists to prosecuted in federal criminal court in Manhattan?"

No, the problem started when the terrorists settled on mass murder. Not that you'd have any objection.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 17, 2023 8:18:53 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB