Why Now?
The U.S. announced yesterday that it had reached a plea deal with the man accused of masterminding the 9/11 terror attacks nearly 23 years ago, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and two accomplices. They’ll plead guilty and serve life sentences rather than go to trial and face a possible death penalty.
The big question is why now, as opposed to a plea deal at any time in the past? It’s certainly a question many of the families of the 3,000 killed that day are asking.
On the face of it, having a trial nearly a quarter century after the crime is risky if for no other reason that witnesses are harder to secure. Why a trial was not held much sooner remains a question. Prosecutors wrote a letter to victim families, saying the settlement “was not reached lightly; however, it is our collective, reasoned, and good-faith judgment that this resolution is the best path to finality and justice in this case.”
Not sure the families are all on board with this being justice.
There are allegations that the defendants were tortured after capture, and a recent U.S. Supreme Court case in another matter suggests evidence obtained in this case might have been disallowed due to the torture.
But again, why now? What purpose is served by resolving it right now, in the midst of the most turbulent month in American politics in generations?
Call me skeptical, but this is an election year. And this Administration is certainly not above doing something for political reasons.
