A sharply divided three-judge panel on Friday threw out a bid to let Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—and two fellow detainees—pledge guilty in exchange for life sentences, effectively keeping the shadow of the death penalty over the Guantánamo Bay proceedings.
In a 2–1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s move last August to yank back plea agreements that military prosecutors had twice approved. The majority—Circuit Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao—emphasized that Austin “indisputably had legal authority” to pull the plug, insisting that families of 9/11 victims and the public deserve a full, transparent trial.
Dissenting Judge Robert Wilkins blasted the ruling as “stunning,” arguing that military courts had already green-lit the deals and that civilian judges should respect their interpretation of military rules. His lone voice, however, could not sway the panel.
These plea pacts, struck after years of legal gridlock, promised to end two decades of procedural logjams and spare the defendants the gallows. Instead, the decision resurrects the sprawling prosecution that first began in the aftermath of the 2001 attacks—proceedings marked by controversies over interrogation techniques, jurisdiction, and the very future of the long-decried detention camp at Guantánamo.
Mohammed, long cast as the architect of the hijackings that slaughtered nearly 3,000 people, now faces renewed uncertainty over whether a public military trial will culminate in capital punishment or another lengthy stalemate. His co-defendants—Mustafa al Hawsawi and Walid bin ‘Atash—are still weighing their options, including an appeal to the Supreme Court.
With both executive branch and judiciary at odds, the long-running saga of Guantánamo’s most infamous inmate shows no sign of fading into history.
