Federal prosecutors finalizes plea deals with three 9/11 defendants for LWOP sentences

In this post last year, I noted that families of 9/11 victims had been notified that military prosecutors and defense lawyers were exploring plea deals for certain defendants that would take the death penalty off the table.  Last night, as reported in this New York Times article, it seemingly became official that the “man accused of plotting the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and two of his accomplices have agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy and murder charges in exchange for a life sentence rather than a death-penalty trial at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.”  Here is more:

Prosecutors said the deal was meant to bring some “finality and justice” to the case, particularly for the families of nearly 3,000 people who were killed in the attacks in New York City, at the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field.

The defendants Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi reached the deal in talks with prosecutors across 27 months at Guantánamo and approved on Wednesday by a senior Pentagon official overseeing the war court.

The men have been in U.S. custody since 2003. But the case had become mired in more than a decade of pretrial proceedings that focused on the question of whether their torture in secret C.I.A. prisons had contaminated the evidence against them.

Word of the deal emerged in a letter from war court prosecutors to Sept. 11 family members. “In exchange for the removal of the death penalty as a possible punishment, these three accused have agreed to plead guilty to all of the charged offenses, including the murder of the 2,976 people listed in the charge sheet,” said the letter, which was signed by Rear Adm. Aaron C. Rugh, the chief prosecutor for military commissions, and three lawyers on his team. The letter said the men could submit their pleas in open court as early as next week.

The plea averted what was envisioned as an eventual 12- to 18-month trial, or, alternatively, the possibility of the military judge throwing out confessions that were key to the government’s case. Col. Matthew N. McCall, the judge, had been hearing testimony this week and had more hearings scheduled for later this year to decide that and other key pretrial issues….

The three men will still face a mini trial of sorts, but probably not before next year. At the military commissions, where they were charged, a judge accepts the plea, but a military jury must be empaneled to hear evidence, including testimony from victims of the attacks, and deliver a sentence. By that point, the judge has typically resolved litigation over what evidence can be used at the sentencing proceeding.

The deal stirred both anger and relief among the thousands of relatives of those killed on Sept. 11. Some family members had been fearful that the case would never reach a resolution, and that the defendants would die in U.S. custody without a conviction. Others, wanting a death penalty, had pushed the government to get the case to trial, even at the risk of the sentence being later overturned….

Two of the original five defendants were not a party to the deal. Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was accused of helping to organize a cell of the hijackers in Hamburg, Germany, was found incompetent to stand trial because of mental illness, and his case was severed. The fifth defendant, known as Ammar al-Baluchi, 46, also was not included in the plea agreement and could face trial alone. He is the nephew of Mr. Mohammed and is charged, like Mr. Hawsawi, with helping the hijackers with finances and travel arrangements while working in the Persian Gulf.