September 11 family members just out of court in their lawsuit against Saudi Arabia are ripping the Biden administration’s decision to strike a plea deal with terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two accomplices.
“This is shitty timing. It’s just another move to wrap up 9/11 and put it in a box and make it go away,” said Brett Eagleson, who was 15 years old when his dad, Bruce, died while working at the Twin Towers on 9/11.
Eagleson spoke to the Herald just after leaving a Manhattan federal court where the 9/11 loved ones faced off with Saudi officials Wednesday, declaring “it’s about time” for the truth to finally come out. The case includes 1,424 documents collected and filed with the court.
The lawyers representing thousands of families — including many from Massachusetts — are fighting to keep the case against the Kingdom going before a Manhattan judge. Their lawyers argued the 9/11 Commission did not know the level of alleged Saudi involvement with hijackers in California they uncovered.
“It’s about time to bring home the truth. Bring home disclosure,” said Eagleson right after court.
The judge in the federal case has taken the matter under advisement. He must decide if the case can move on to further discovery.
But less than an hour later, news broke that Mohammed and his fellow al-Qaeda killers would escape the death penalty.
The Department of Defense announced late Wednesday that the U.S. has “entered into pretrial agreements with Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, three of the co-accused in the 9/11 case.”
All three are expected to enter the pleas at the military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as soon as next week, the Associated Press reports.
“This is a failure of justice,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother was one of the pilots murdered on 9/11 — nearly 23 years ago. “The American people have a right to know how much this all cost. It’s in the billions. This trial. But it’s not about money, it’s about political injustice.”
The hijackers killed 2,976 people on Sept. 11, 2001 — including on two jets that took off from Logan International Airport that sunny morning.
Burlingame’s brother Charles “Chic” Burlingame III was the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 that was hijacked out of Washington Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Va., and flown into the Pentagon on 9/11.
Eagleson said the court hearing “was overwhelming, at times,” but the legal team representing 9/11 families still looking for their day in court had everyone “surging with pride.”
The 9/11 team obtained a video that allegedly shows a Saudi suspect “casing the Capitol” in the summer of 1999, pointing out where Congress sits. Eagleson also says a companion sketchbook painstakingly shows “an aviator’s algorithm on how to hit a target on the horizon when flying a plane.”
He credits British officials for obtaining both pieces of “incredible” evidence and retired FBI agents for assisting 9/11 families who refuse to give up on seeking justice after the ruthless jet attacks on New York City, the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pa.
“This is all information our own government has denied us access to,” Eagleson said. “The 9/11 Commission did not have the luxury of knowing all of this.”
Still, going from elation in court to the shock of a plea deal after left him shaken.
“Why didn’t anyone talk to us about this first? It’s a crappy ending to a great day,” he added, saying the case is about all those who cannot defend themselves any longer: “The lawyers were arguing for my dad and for all the people who died.”
Fifteen of the 19 Sept. 11 attackers were Saudis.
“The Kingdom and its attorneys know that the dam is breaking and that this may be their last chance to avoid a trial that will force it to defend the indefensible — its funding and logistical support of al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorists who killed my husband and thousands of other Americans,” said 9/11 Families United National Chair Terry Strada.
She added: “The Kingdom’s attorneys tried every way possible to persuade the court but only succeeded in satisfying their paymasters. The court must deny the motion to dismiss and move this trial forward.”
Originally Published: