9/11 terrorists can be charged with death penalty, appeals court rules
In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit determined that the Department of Defense has the authority to reverse the plea deals made last July by former President Joe Biden's administration with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi.
According to Fox News, under the plea deals that were approved by senior Pentagon officials and military lawyers, the three terrorists would have been sentenced to life without parole but would have potentially been protected from the death penalty; however, Friday's ruling allows the Department of Defense to withdraw from the agreements.
Last August, former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued a memorandum, saying, 'I have determined that, in light of the significance of the decision to enter into pre-trial agreements with the accused in the above-referenced case, responsibility for such a decision should rest with me as the superior convening authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2009.'
READ MORE: Bill blocking Biden from giving 9/11 terrorists plea deals introduced by GOP lawmakers
The former defense secretary added, 'Effective immediately, in the exercise of my authority, I hereby withdraw from the three pretrial agreements that you signed on July 31, 2024.'
According to CNN, a military judge ruled in November that the Biden administration's plea deal agreements with the three 9/11 terrorists were 'valid and enforceable.' The outlet noted that a military appeals court also ruled against Austin's attempt to withdraw from the plea deals in December.
The Post Millennial reported that President Donald Trump's administration chose to continue pushing for the plea deals to be withdrawn following the start of Trump's second term in office in January.
In Friday's opinion, Judge Patricia Millett and Judge Neomi Rao wrote, 'The Secretary of Defense indisputably had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements.'
'Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out,' the judges added. 'The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
5 minutes ago
- New York Post
The Biden administration secretly stole your data to engineer elections and silence speech
While the Department of Government Efficiency traces the flow of dollars between government and partisan activists, the flow of data may reveal an even deeper menace. The real story of government weaponization can only be told once we reckon with the shadowy data-sharing web secretly used to manipulate elections, punish foes and silence speech — which my new book, 'They're Coming for You,' dares to expose. Without the constitutional authority to collect our financial transactions, our browsing histories or our location data, the Biden administration found a workaround. Federal agencies outsourced unconstitutional data grabs to politically aligned partners. Instead of collecting data directly, they bought or sold it from or exchanged it with nonprofits and tech companies. 5 Author Jason Chaffetz was a House Oversight Committee chairman. Reuters My book exposes three critical fronts where this abuse thrived: election interference, citizen surveillance and the erosion of free speech. The silent manipulation of voters through our data demands urgent scrutiny to protect future elections. While DOGE's budget probes grab headlines, the real scandal is deeper. A Biden executive order forced every federal agency to conduct ostensibly nonpartisan voter-registration drives. Yet the implementation often told a different story. 5 Book The Small Business Administration, for instance, diverted its limited resources toward partisan voter outreach. The agency proactively contacted states, particularly swing states like Arizona and Georgia, to request designations as voter-registration entities, though federal law requires states to make the first move under the National Voter Registration Act. Emails obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests reveal the SBA's focus on liberal voting blocs, including promoting events likely to register Democratic-leaning voters in blue precincts. 'How many events have you run to open small businesses in non-Democratic areas?' one lawmaker asked SBA Associate Administrator for Field Operations Jennifer Kim during a 2024 hearing. Kim didn't answer directly but assured the committee politics played no role in the agency's outreach — a claim the efforts' documented partisan skew contradicts. 5 The Small Business Administration's Jennifer Kim faced questions of agency bias at a 2024 House hearing. YouTube This wasn't random. It was a calculated use of our information, supported by partisan allies, to evade transparency. The result? A voter base quietly reshaped, funded by us but hidden from view. This breach of trust — turning our data into a political tool — undermines democracy itself. My book uncovers this network, revealing how agencies and partners weaponized government services without our knowledge. Voter manipulation is just the opening salvo. The Biden administration unleashed warrantless surveillance to silence dissenters, pressuring financial institutions to flag 'suspicious' transactions and debank opposing voices. This effort ultimately targeted Christian nonprofits, gun makers, conservative protesters — even Melania and Barron Trump — closing their accounts without cause. By buying and sharing information with activist nongovernmental organizations and corporations, financial regulators dodged legal restrictions on government data collection. 5 If this data weaponization goes unchecked, Chaffetz warns, it won't end with the Biden administration. AP This financial chokehold is just the start. President Biden's administration also expanded the National Security Agency's warrantless-surveillance programs to collect bulk data, including phone metadata, browsing histories and emails, bypassing Congress and public transparency. This data net muzzles your voice. Social-media giants Facebook, YouTube and pre-Elon Musk Twitter faced pressure, with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency flagging 859 million tweets as 'misinformation' in 2023, burying 22 million. Among those, many truthful but politically inconvenient facts were buried under labels such as 'Trends blacklist' and 'Do not amplify.' 5 A White House dissent crackdown ensnared Melania and Barron Trump. Getty Images NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index, each with documented Biden-adminsitration ties, amplified this bias by assigning conservative outlets disproportionately low reliability ratings. The Federalist, for example, received a NewsGuard failing score of 12.5 out of 100, allegedly for publishing content deemed objectionable to Democrats rather than for spreading inaccurate information. This harsh rating caused advertisers to flee, severely undercutting revenue to conservative outlets that dared tell the truth. By contrast, left-leaning sites such as NPR and The New York Times consistently received top ratings, regardless of their reporting errors, reinforcing their dominance in news visibility and funding. Artificial-intelligence tools, funded by government programs, downranked conservative narratives, ensuring they vanished from searches. YouTube even tweaked algorithms at the feds' behest. Censorship laundering through NGOs masked illegal moves, monitoring posts to crush wrongthink. The stakes couldn't be higher. If this data weaponization goes unchecked, it won't end with Democrats or the Biden administration. History has shown us the erosion of liberties for one group inevitably sets the stage for broader abuses. Today, it's conservatives being silenced; tomorrow, it might be anyone who dissents. But there's hope. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and Americans of all political stripes should demand transparency and accountability from their government and its partners. Whether through boycotts, lawsuits or investigators like DOGE, there are ways to fight back. Free speech and an open exchange of ideas define our democracy. When those in power suppress dissent, they betray not just their critics but the Constitution itself. 'They're Coming for You' is a first step in exposing this corruption. But the responsibility to stop it falls on us all. Stand for truth. Demand accountability. And above all, protect the freedoms that make America a beacon of liberty. Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz is a former House Oversight Committee chairman.
Miami Herald
5 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
USCIS ends key parole benefit, says immigration fees will rise ‘soon'
After eliminating several immigration programs and benefits established by the previous administration under Joe Biden, the government of Donald Trump has decided to end another key aid for those seeking to regularize their immigration status in the United States. An update from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) also warns that new fees will 'soon' be implemented for certain immigration benefit applications. The decision regarding one of the most commonly used forms by parole recipients went into effect on Thursday, July 17, 2025. What benefit was eliminated by USCIS? USCIS released a new edition of Form G-1055, the Fee Schedule. In this edition, it eliminates the eligibility for a fee waiver for Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, Parole Documents and Arrival/Departure Records, for immigrants applying for parole under the following categories: ▪ Initial Request for Arrival/Departure Record for Parole In Place (PIP), for noncitizens currently in the United States. ▪ Re-parole Requests for individuals who had previously received a period of parole under the PIP program. Read more: 'A privilege, not a right': Trump administration puts green card holders on notice From now now, those submitting these applications will have to pay the current fee of $630, as stated in the updated G-1055 document. Requirements for obtaining PIP vary by case, since the U.S. grants different types of temporary stay permits, ranging from family members of U.S. military personnel to individuals who qualify for humanitarian reasons. In 2024, the Biden administration proposed expanding parole in place to undocumented immigrants married to U.S. citizens who met certain requirements, such as having lived in the country for a minimum number of years. An estimated 500,000 people could have benefited from that measure, but a federal court in Texas blocked the process, known as the Keeping Families Together (KFT) initiative. USCIS announces increases to immigration fees On July 11, USCIS announced that it 'will soon begin charging new fees for certain immigration benefit requests.' 'We will provide details on the implementation of these fee changes in the coming days,' the agency noted, just before updating the parole in place form. These measures are part of the reforms promoted by President Trump as part of his 'One Big Beautiful Bill' budget plan, which was approved by the Senate. This legislation proposes sweeping changes to the immigration system, including: ▪ Stricter enforcement rules for immigration laws ▪ New restrictions on social benefits such as Medicaid or food stamps (SNAP) ▪ Increases in fees for essential immigration procedures, such as permanent residency, TPS and asylum applications.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
State media are dead — long live state media
With the final elimination of public funding for National Public Radio as part of a $9 billion savings package, the era of the American state media will technically come to an end. However, what makes for state media is not state support alone. So, the state media is dead — long live the state media. That variation of the traditional mourning cry of the British monarchy will be heard more in whispers than proclamations this week in Washington. The government subsidy for NPR has long been a subject of controversy. Many opposed NPR for its open bias in reporting news, a record that thrilled the left and outraged many on the right. Just before the final vote, NPR CEO Katherine Maher gave another interview that left many agape. She denied any such bias and asked whether anyone could point to a single story that showed a political or ideological slant. Ignoring a myriad of such examples, Maher then went from defiant to delusional, insisting that NPR was trying hard to 'understand those criticisms.' It was a bit late for Maher to feign surprise or confusion, particularly as a CEO whose selection to take over the struggling NPR many of us opposed. Her glaring and overt bias did not seem like the antidote to NPR's shrinking audience and revenue. The board would have done better to select a neutral journalist. Instead, it doubled down on the bias. In 2024, NPR had a window to actually 'understand' the criticism and make adjustments. Instead, it treated the government subsidy as an entitlement, backed by Democratic members in Congress. The board would have done better to select a neutral journalist. Instead, it doubled down, hiring a candidate with a long record of far-left public statements against Republicans, Trump, and others. This is the same CEO who attacked respected senior editor Uri Berliner when he tried to get NPR to address its bias and restore greater balance on the staff. Berliner noted that NPR's Washington headquarters has 87 registered Democrats among its editors and zero Republicans. Maher slammed the award-winning Berliner for his 'affront to the individual journalists who work incredibly hard.' She called his criticism 'profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.' Berliner resigned after noting how Maher's 'divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR' that he had been pointing out. But I have argued that NPR's well-established bias and publication of baseless conspiracy theories are not the real reasons for taking away its federal funding. The truth is, NPR represented an embrace of a state media model used in other countries that Americans thoroughly reject. Maher bizarrely tried to rally support for government funding by insisting that we must 'keep the government out' of the media. Congress just did precisely that by clawing back NPR's funding. The government has occasionally supported the media, but generally to benefit all media outlets. For example, in 1791, Madison declared that Congress had an obligation to improve the 'circulation of newspapers through the entire body of the people' and sponsored the Post Office Act of 1791, giving newspapers reduced postage rates. Notably, those same Democrats in Congress who decried the reduction of funding for NPR would have revolted over funding for more successful radio outlets, such as Fox Radio. Indeed, some of the same members had previously pushed cable carriers to consider dropping Fox News, the most popular cable news channel. What Congress did with NPR was wrong. Liberals and Democrats fought to protect the funding even though NPR's shrinking audience is now overwhelmingly white, affluent, and liberal. However, the end of government subsidies will not necessarily mean the end of an effective state media. As I noted in my book ' The Indispensable Right,' we have seen how the media can create the same effect as state media by consent rather than coercion. For years, media outlets have echoed the same party line, including burying negative stories and repeating debunked stories. Actual readers and listeners abandoned the mainstream media in droves. 'Let's Go Brandon' became a national mantra mocking journalists for their inability even to see and hear if the sights and sounds don't fit their preconceived narratives. Just as Maher has expressed utter confusion on how anyone could view NPR as biased, these editors and journalists will cling to the same advocacy journalism, rejecting the principles of objectivity and neutrality. However, there is still one hope for restoring traditional journalism: the market. Now that NPR is off the public dole, it will have to compete fairly with other radio outlets for audiences and revenue. It is free to alienate most listeners who have center-right viewpoints, but it will have to sustain itself on a smaller share of the market. Other outlets are facing the same dire choice. Recently, the Post encouraged writers and editors to leave if they were unwilling to get on board with a new direction at the newspaper. Previously, Washington Post publisher and CEO Will Lewis had told his writers that the newspaper was experiencing massive losses in readers and revenues because 'no one is reading your stuff.' It triggered a revolt on the staff, which would have rather run the paper into insolvency than return to objectivity and neutrality. The same preference was seen with the cancellation of Stephen Colbert's late-night show. What had been David Letterman's formidable program had become a shrill echo chamber for the far left as Colbert engaged in nightly and mostly unfunny diatribes against Trump and Republicans. As its ratings and revenues fell, Colbert was unmoved. At the same time, Fox's Greg Gutfeld continued to crush the competition as viewers abandoned CBS and other broadcast networks. The year's second-quarter ratings showed Fox News's 'Gutfeld!' drawing an average of three million viewers. Gutfeld's more conservative takes on news remain unique among these late-night shows. In comparison, 'The Late Show' with Stephen Colbert came in second last quarter with an average 2.42 million viewers, despite being a far more costly program. As liberals expressed outrage over the cancellation and alleged that CBS's owner, Paramount, was seeking to garner favor with the Trump Administration, even CNN admitted that the show under Colbert had become ' unfortunately unprofitable.' Paramount issued a statement insisting that Colbert's cancelation was 'not related in any way to the show's performance.' Perhaps, but media companies are hardly in the habit of cancelling profitable, popular programming. Ultimately, the market is correcting what the media would not. Roughly half of this country is center-right, and 77 million people voted for Trump. They are turning to social media and new media rather than remain a captive audience to a biased legacy media committed to advocacy journalism. As media outlets fail, there may also be more pressure on journalism schools to return to core principles rather than crank out social justice warriors no one wants to read or hear from. In the meantime, Maher and NPR can continue to stay the course and try to make up in pledge drives what they lost in public subsidies. However, the whole thing will now have to pay for itself without passing along costs to the rest of the non-listening country. .'
