Justice for 9/11 Act

Section 2(c) imposes mandatory conditions of confinement for any sentence imposed on these defendants. It requires that they be held at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay in solitary confinement; prohibits them from having contact with foreign nationals; limits psychological treatment to care specifically authorized by Guantanamo medical authorities; and categorically bans their transfer to the continental United States or to any other country. This codifies into law permanent, highly restrictive detention conditions for these three individuals and closes off diplomatic or administrative options such as repatriation, third-country resettlement, or transfer to U.S. soil for incarceration.

Policy-wise, the bill reflects a belief that earlier or ongoing plea negotiations undermined justice by taking the death penalty off the table and by risking outcomes seen as too lenient given the scale of the 9/11 crimes. It also seeks to prevent executive branch decisions that could move the detainees out of Guantanamo, either for humanitarian, diplomatic, or logistical reasons. By naming specific individuals, the bill represents an unusually targeted congressional intervention in ongoing and prospective legal proceedings.

The measure is likely to generate significant legal debate. Because it singles out named individuals and imposes punitive conditions (including solitary confinement and permanent non-transfer) while invalidating the finality of plea agreements, critics may raise Bill of Attainder concerns (legislative punishment aimed at identified persons). There could also be separation-of-powers issues, as Congress would be directing outcomes in specific criminal/commission cases and constraining executive prosecutorial discretion and plea-bargaining authority. Moreover, allowing trial notwithstanding prior plea agreements and related judgments may invite Double Jeopardy arguments, though the bill’s drafters likely anticipate litigation over whether jeopardy attached and how military commission procedures intersect with constitutional protections. The “notwithstanding any other provision of law” language also raises questions about how this statute would interact with domestic law, international obligations (e.g., consular access and ICRC visitation), and longstanding U.S. detention policy norms.

From a practical standpoint, the bill could prolong litigation. By negating plea deals designed to finally resolve the 9/11 case without capital punishment, it could steer the case back into a capital trial posture—one that has already faced decades of pretrial delays tied to torture-derived evidence, classification fights, and complex procedural challenges. For victims’ families, this could cut both ways: some will welcome a renewed path to a death-eligible trial, while others may fear still more years before any resolution. Financially and operationally, the mandate to keep the defendants at Guantanamo—under stringent conditions and without transfer—locks in higher long-term costs associated with the facility.

In short, the bill is a strong assertion of congressional will to ensure the death penalty remains available and that these three 9/11 defendants remain confined at Guantanamo under strict conditions, even if that means overriding plea agreements and inviting new rounds of legal scrutiny and delay.