Written by Jacob Thompson.

On August 1, 2024, the White House confirmed that President Joe Biden is resolute in his goal to close the Guantánamo Bay prison before his term ends in January 2025. This announcement followed the news that the Biden administration offered plea deals to three al-Qaida terrorists held at the military facility, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The New York Post clarified that Biden was not involved in the negotiations that removed the death penalty as a potential punishment for the terrorists. A journalist inquired at a White House briefing whether the president still intends to close the facility within the next six months.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre responded, “That’s still something that the president wants to do and get done. As far as a timeline, I don’t have anything for you here, but obviously, this is something that he wanted to be done under his administration. I just don’t have anything else to read out or preview at this time, but it is something that he’s determined to get done.”

The 9/11 Terrorists and Their Plea Deals

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks that killed approximately 3,000 people in New York City, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania, was captured in Pakistan in 2003. Along with him, co-conspirators Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin Attash and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi were also captured that year.

All three have now accepted plea deals that ensure they will avoid the death penalty. However, it remains unclear where they will serve their life sentences. In 2018, Congress specifically restricted the use of funds to transfer Mohammed to U.S. soil.

The announcement of the plea deals sparked outrage among 9/11 victims’ families, who believe the terrorists should face trial and execution. White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan quickly distanced President Biden from the plea deal decision, emphasizing that neither Biden nor any senior officials had any involvement.

“The president had no role, the vice president had no role, I had no role and the White House had no role. And we were informed yesterday—the same day that they went out publicly—that this pretrial agreement had been accepted by the convening authority,” Sullivan stated.

Political and Public Reactions

The decision to close Guantánamo Bay has long been a controversial issue. While some see it as a necessary step toward upholding human rights and international law, others view it as a threat to national security. Biden’s push to close the prison before leaving office has reignited this debate.

Critics argue that closing Guantánamo Bay could result in dangerous terrorists being transferred to less secure facilities or even released. Proponents counter that the prison represents a dark chapter in American history, marked by allegations of torture and indefinite detention without trial.

The Biden administration’s handling of the plea deals has added another layer of complexity to the issue. By removing the death penalty from consideration, the administration hoped to expedite the legal process, which has dragged on for years. However, this move has been seen by many as a concession to terrorists.

The administration faces the challenge of balancing national security concerns with the president’s commitment to closing Guantánamo Bay. As Biden’s term nears its end, the pressure to fulfill this promise increases, along with the potential political fallout.

Our Take

President Biden’s determination to close Guantánamo Bay reflects his long-standing commitment to ending what many consider an international embarrassment. However, the recent plea deals offered to the 9/11 terrorists highlight the complexities and potential pitfalls of this goal. While the administration insists that the president had no role in these deals, the public perception of leniency towards terrorists can have damaging consequences.

Closing Guantánamo Bay is not just about ending the use of a controversial facility; it involves navigating a minefield of legal, political, and security issues. The outrage from 9/11 victims’ families underscores the deep emotions and high stakes involved. Moving forward, the administration must carefully consider how to achieve its objectives without compromising public trust or national security.

This situation illustrates the broader challenges of governing and the often conflicting demands of justice, security, and political commitments. As the debate continues, it is essential to remember the victims of 9/11 and ensure that their voices are heard in the quest for closure and justice.