Guantánamo 9/11 Trial Set for June 2028
A military judge has established a new timeline for the long-delayed prosecution of four alleged 9/11 plotters, a decision that has intensified frustration among victim families and raised questions about the viability of the military commission system.
Twenty-five years after the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, the alleged plotters have yet to face a final verdict. A military judge at Guantánamo Bay has now ordered jury selection to begin on June 5, 2028, for the trial of four defendants, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is accused of being the principal architect of the attacks. This latest scheduling order follows the judge's rejection of prosecutors' request to begin the trial earlier, in January 2027.
The delay has generated significant frustration among those affected by the attacks. Gordon Felt, president of Families of Flight 93 and brother of passenger Edward Felt, noted to CBS News that the pre-trial phase has dragged on endlessly without yielding justice or accountability. For many families, the extended timeline raises painful questions about whether the case will proceed as planned after so many missed deadlines and prolonged legal maneuvers.
Defendants Face Severe Penalties
Four men are slated to stand trial together: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, Ammar al-Baluchi, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi. Prosecutors are seeking charges that include conspiracy, murder in violation of the law of war, terrorism, and hijacking, with the death penalty a potential outcome. A fifth defendant, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, was removed from the case after a judge determined he was mentally unfit to stand trial.
According to the prosecution, Mohammed developed and directed the plot to hijack commercial aircraft, weaponizing them for strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Captured in Pakistan in 2003, he was held in secret CIA custody before being transferred to Guantánamo in 2006. His statements remain a central piece of the government's case, though they have also posed significant challenges in preparing for trial.
Legal Complexity and Institutional Shifts
Michael Lebowitz, a former Justice Department national security attorney who worked on the case for a decade, describes the proceedings as extraordinarily complicated. He argues that the U.S. government chose an unusual path by using military commissions rather than federal criminal courts. Lebowitz notes that this shift required Congress and the Supreme Court to adjust the legal framework, resulting in a hybrid system characterized by frequent changes in judges and personnel.
The current presiding officer, Air Force Lt. Col. Michael Schrama, is the fifth judge to oversee the case since the defendants were arraigned in 2012. Lebowitz recalls that the initial arraignment lasted thirteen hours, describing it as the longest in American history. This instability has contributed to the protracted nature of the proceedings, creating a legal landscape that differs significantly from standard criminal prosecutions.
Abandoned Federal Court Plans
In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the defendants would be prosecuted in federal court in Manhattan. The Obama administration argued that federal courts were better equipped to handle major terrorism cases and could provide a fair trial. However, this plan collapsed after the acquittal of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani on most charges related to the 1998 embassy bombings, which became a political flashpoint in the debate over terrorism prosecution methods.
As the June 2028 date approaches, observers will watch closely to see if this timeline holds. The outcome of these proceedings will not only determine the fate of the defendants but also test the durability of the military commission system in the post-9/11 era. The case remains a focal point for discussions on justice, accountability, and the evolving nature of international law.
