NEW: Biden’s Legacy Further Damaged By Yet Another Major Scandal

In a development that could redefine the final chapter of Joe Biden’s presidency, a U.S. military appeals court ruling has dealt a significant blow to the administration. The court’s decision, handed down Tuesday, centers around the handling of plea deals for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two co-defendants, who are accused of orchestrating the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The ruling determined that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin overstepped his authority in rescinding plea agreements that had been negotiated and approved earlier this year. Those agreements would have allowed the defendants to avoid the death penalty in exchange for guilty pleas. The arrangement stipulated that the defendants would plead guilty to war crimes and accept life sentences.

The appeals court determined that Defense Secretary Austin does not possess the authority to rescind plea agreements struck with three key defendants in the September 11 terror attacks. The agreements, negotiated in July of this year, involved Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is widely considered the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and co-defendants Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi.

Khaled Sheikh Mohammed

The military judge overseeing the case ruled that Secretary Austin’s intervention was both untimely and beyond his jurisdiction. The defendants had already begun fulfilling their obligations under the agreements, and the judge emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of negotiated deals within the military justice system.

Mohammed was the one who proposed the hijacking plan and coordinated its execution. Bin Attash, a Yemeni operative, helped train hijackers and managed logistics, while al-Hawsawi, a Saudi national, provided financial and travel support. All three were captured in Pakistan in 2003 and are detained at Guantanamo Bay, facing charges in delayed military trials.

The decision has sparked polarized reactions. Some families of 9/11 victims and public officials vented their frustration, saying that the enormity of the attacks demands the death penalty. Sally Regenhard, who lost her firefighter son, Christian, during the attacks in New York City, expressed her strong opposition to the plea deal.

“We are 100 percent against the plea deal. The whole process has been a disaster,” Regenhard told The New York Post. As a member of the 9/11 Parents and Families of Firefighters and World Trade Center Victims, she also stated her belief that the terrorists “should have been tried at the scene of the crime” in Manhattan federal court, a location mere blocks from Ground Zero.

Jim McCaffrey, a retired FDNY lieutenant whose brother-in-law, Battalion Chief Orio Palmer, died after reaching the 78th floor of the south tower, vehemently criticized the plea deal. “This plea deal is atrocious. It’s salt added to the wound. If anybody deserves the death penalty, these terrorists do. They should have been executed years ago,” McCaffrey stated.

For over two decades, the pursuit of justice for the 9/11 attacks has faced hurdles, from procedural challenges to debates over the admissibility of evidence. If the ruling stands, the three defendants will serve life sentences without parole, concluding a prolonged chapter of legal and moral debates stemming from the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

(VOTE: Should JD Vance Run For President In 2028?)