9/11 terrorists evade justice as leftist allies wage lawfare

Nearly a quarter-century has passed since the September 11 attacks, yet the architect of that atrocity, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, remains untried and unsentenced—a stunning failure enabled by America’s own judicial system being weaponised against the national interest.

According to Betsy McCaughey writing in New York Post, the American Civil Liberties Union bears substantial responsibility for this miscarriage of justice. From the outset, the ACLU intervened in the case, claiming the two military lawyers initially assigned to defend Mohammed and his co-conspirators lacked adequate death penalty experience and were insufficiently equipped to confront the full might of the United States government.

The civil liberties organisation subsequently deployed its own team of specialist capital defence attorneys at a cost running into millions of dollars. These lawyers have since waged what McCaughey describes as a protracted legal campaign, systematically obstructing proceedings at the military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay.

Defence counsel have challenged the admissibility of evidence by arguing the accused were not informed of their rights and were subjected to CIA waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques. Yet as McCaughey observes, the true victims of ongoing torment are the families of 9/11 victims, still denied justice and closure after all these years.

Constitutional Rights for Foreign Terrorists?

From the beginning, the ACLU has insisted foreign terrorists merit the same due process protections and presumption of innocence afforded to American citizens. This position is fundamentally flawed. These perpetrators do not deserve the safeguards enshrined in the United States Constitution, nor are they entitled to the protections granted legitimate combatants under the Geneva Convention. Mohammed and his accomplices deliberately violated the laws of war by massacring civilians without warning.

Nevertheless, their legal team—including Gary Sowards, who previously represented Unabomber Ted Kaczynski—has repeatedly outmanoeuvred military prosecutors through endless pretrial motions and multiple attempts to negotiate plea agreements removing capital punishment from consideration.

Latest Setback Throws Justice Further Out of Reach

Twenty-five years after the attacks, justice appears more distant than ever. Last Friday, Lt. Col. Michael Schrama, the fifth military judge to oversee the case, delivered a lopsided ruling granting the defence virtually everything it sought.

Just two days after scheduling a trial date for June 2028—evidently feeling no urgency to deliver justice—Schrama ruled that the terrorists’ confessions and other evidence obtained at Guantanamo would be inadmissible at trial. His reasoning was that interrogators failed to explicitly inform Mohammed of his right to silence and legal counsel, or that his statements could be used against him.

More egregiously, Schrama determined that the harsh interrogation methods and isolation the terrorists experienced at CIA hands before arriving at Guantanamo conditioned them to tell interrogators whatever they wanted to hear, thereby rendering subsequent confessions unreliable.

Critical Evidence Being Excluded

The enhanced interrogation techniques were employed immediately following Mohammed’s 2003 arrest in a desperate attempt to ascertain whether additional attacks on American soil were imminent. He subsequently admitted his role to the FBI in 2007. Then, in 2024, Mohammed signed a written statement as part of an unsuccessful plea arrangement in which he confessed to planning and executing the September 11 attacks from beginning to end.

Prosecutors also possess a hard drive seized during Mohammed’s arrest containing photographs of the 19 hijackers and three letters from Osama bin Laden. Despite this evidence, Schrama’s ruling effectively excludes all confessions, making conviction significantly more difficult.

Prosecutors have not yet indicated whether they will appeal. They must do so—and pursue the matter to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Correcting a Grave Error

It is past time to rectify the Supreme Court’s misguided 2008 decision in Boumediene v. Bush, when the justices ruled 5-4 that terrorists being tried before military tribunals are entitled to identical due process protections as defendants in civilian American courts.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in dissent, warned the ruling imposed an impossible burden on military courts at a time when America remained at war with radical Islamists. The protracted, fruitless litigation against Mohammed and his co-defendants vindicates Scalia’s concerns. Today’s Supreme Court majority would likely recognise the folly of applying civilian due process standards to foreign terrorists.

The Terrorists Are Guilty

These four terrorists are unquestionably guilty. They claimed responsibility for their actions even before capture. They deserve capital punishment.

Yet last week, their lawyers moved to resurrect the shelved 2024 plea agreement that would spare them from execution. Such an outcome would constitute a terrible injustice.

Whilst many Americans oppose capital punishment for legitimate reasons, the events of September 11 represented a unique form of evil that transcends normal moral considerations. Israel has abolished the death penalty, yet as commentator Douglas Murray notes, it is making an exception for the terrorists who butchered unarmed women and children on 7 October.

For Americans, 9/11 is comparable. Those who value freedom and decency must demand justice for the victims of the worst crime ever committed on American soil.

With information from New York Post