9/11 mastermind’s trial set for 2028 after two decades of pre-trial proceedings
Developing story first seen 1 hour ago
A quarter of a century after the 11 September 2001 attacks, the trial of alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has still not begun, though a trial date has now been set for June 2028 following pre-trial proceedings at Guantanamo Bay that have dragged on for 20 years and been overseen by five different military judges. This matters because relatives of the almost 3,000 people killed fear time is running out for justice to be served, with elderly family members worried they may not live to see a verdict, and concern that the defendants themselves could die before facing trial.
Tom Resta, whose brother John and heavily pregnant sister-in-law Sylvia died in the World Trade Center's north tower, has travelled to Guantanamo four times to observe what he calls a "laborious and tedious" legal process, and says his 97-year-old father does not expect to live to see the trial conclude. Stephan Gerhardt, who lost his younger brother Ralph, has made six trips to Guantanamo and says securing convictions is essential, describing his greatest fear as the defendants dying of old age before being tried and convicted for the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people across New York, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.
- Trial date for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed set for June 2028
- Pre-trial process has lasted 20 years across five military judges
- Victims' families fear defendants or relatives may die before trial concludes
New here? Start with this
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, described by prosecutors as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, has been held at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay for years while awaiting trial before a military commission, a special court set up to handle terrorism cases outside the ordinary civilian or military justice system. He and several co-defendants face charges over the coordinated hijackings of 11 September 2001, which killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, at the Pentagon and in a field in Pennsylvania.
The case has been unusually slow to reach trial, partly because of legal disputes over evidence obtained through the CIA's use of torture on the defendants after their capture, questions about whether that evidence can be used, and repeated changes of military judge overseeing the proceedings. These pre-trial disputes have continued for two decades without a trial actually starting.
The delay matters to the families of those killed, many of whom have travelled to Guantanamo repeatedly to witness the hearings and are growing concerned that elderly relatives, or even the defendants themselves, may die before a verdict is reached. The case is widely seen as a test of how the United States delivers justice in terrorism prosecutions that involve contested evidence and detention practices.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the methodical, years-long pre-trial process argue that the gravity of capital charges and the extraordinary legal complexities involved demand exactly this level of caution, particularly given unresolved questions about evidence obtained through interrogation methods now widely regarded as torture. They contend that rushing a case of this magnitude, which involves classified national security material and contested evidence, risks producing a conviction that later collapses on appeal, ultimately failing victims' families far more than the delay itself. Upholding rigorous fair-trial standards, even for those accused of an atrocity on this scale, is what they see as distinguishing a lawful justice system from a summary one.
The case against
For many bereaved relatives, two decades of pre-trial wrangling represents an unacceptable failure to deliver timely accountability, with elderly parents and siblings now facing the real prospect of dying before any verdict is reached. They argue that the overriding purpose of the justice system is to provide closure to those harmed, and that procedural delay, however legally defensible in theory, becomes a form of injustice in itself when it stretches across a generation. From this perspective, the priority ought to be a swift, decisive reckoning for an attack that killed nearly 3,000 people, rather than an open-ended process whose end point keeps receding.
Coverage
- Daily Mail — Nick and Diane met stranded in Newfoundland on 9/11 and fell instantly in love… 25 happy years later they tell the life-affirming full story (including moment a blushing flight attendant caught them canoodling!)
- Daily Mail — Immersive ‘9/11 watch party’ is planned in Bournemouth with guests invited to ‘relive’ the world’s deadliest terror attack
- BBC World — ‘Constantly on my mind’ – 9/11 agony goes on for bereaved, 25 years on