Podcast Summary: Consider This from NPR

Episode: The 9/11 terrorism case is in limbo. So are the victim families.
Date: September 10, 2025
Host: Ari Shapiro
Guests: Elizabeth Miller and Brett Eagleson (children of 9/11 victims)
Reporter: Sacha Pfeiffer

Overview of the Episode

This episode of Consider This from NPR delves into the unresolved legal aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, focusing on the perspectives of two people who lost their fathers that day. Over two decades later, the U.S. government’s case against five men accused of plotting 9/11 remains stalled in Guantanamo Bay. Elizabeth Miller and Brett Eagleson share their personal experiences, concerns about justice, and differing views on whether plea deals or trials would best serve the families still awaiting closure.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Remembering Their Fathers ([00:00]–[02:58])

• Elizabeth Miller remembers her father, Doug Miller, a firefighter with Rescue 5, for his dedication and engaging spirit.
  • Quote: “He made everything fun, even if it was something as serious as like practicing for a fire drill.” (Elizabeth Miller, [01:31])
  • She shares memories blurred with home videos: “Sometimes I can't tell what's my own memory and what's relived through other people or through home videos...” ([00:58])
• Brett Eagleson recalls his father, Bruce Eagleson, as having a quirky sense of humor, who turned family disputes into gourmet dinners.
  • Quote: “He would go to extremes to make a point... he actually made menus… It was this elaborate menu.” (Brett Eagleson, [02:31])
• Both Miller and Eagleson have become advocates for other 9/11 family members, seeking government accountability.

The 9/11 Case in Limbo ([04:49]–[05:25])

• The trial for five accused 9/11 planners, including alleged ringleader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has stalled for years.
• Major obstacle: Evidence tainted by torture in CIA custody, resulting in legal disputes over admissibility.
• Defendants remain at Guantanamo Bay as families await resolution—thousands still without closure.

Differing Perspectives on Justice ([05:25]–[12:38])

First True In-depth Conversation

• Sacha Pfeiffer brings Miller and Eagleson together for their first extended conversation ([05:25]).
• Although they’ve communicated digitally, this marks their first face-to-face exchange about the case.

Plea Deals vs. Trials: A Debate

• Elizabeth Miller's viewpoint ([06:19]–[07:07]):

  • Supported the idea of plea deals (life in prison, no death penalty).
  • Felt “excitement that there was finally going to be this, like, potential end in sight.” ([06:19])
  • Was “disappointed” when plea deals were canceled. She’s “frustrated that a decision wasn't made… This wound is still open.” ([06:38])

• Brett Eagleson's viewpoint

  • Criticized the lack of transparency: “Not a single person I’ve talked to was involved in any way with these plea deal agreements.” ([07:13])
  • Felt “a sense of relief” when plea deals were canceled: “We need to avoid plea deals because plea deals avoid a trial, and a trial avoids evidence.” ([07:52])
  • Insists families should be included in the process and worries plea deals would let the case be “wrapped up in a cute box with a bow on it and gets put on a shelf and sort of forgotten about without having discovery...” ([07:52])

Arguments for Trials ([08:43]–[09:39])

• Citing the ongoing civil litigation against Saudi Arabia, Brett values court discovery:
  • “Were it not for discovery… we wouldn’t have known what we now know about who supported these hijackers...” ([08:57])
  • Asserts the justice system—though slow—“truly does what it's intended to do.” ([09:39])

Arguments for Plea Deals ([09:44]–[11:19])

• Elizabeth counters:
  • The Guantanamo system differs from federal court—“with a pretrial agreement, it eliminates the option to appeal, because I've had enough waiting.” ([09:44])
  • Pretrial agreements would force defendants’ stipulations of factual involvement, giving the “who, what, when, where, and why.” ([09:44])
• Brett responds by questioning the credibility of written statements: “How are we going to vet that? And how can we count? This is the historical context.” ([10:42])
  • Believes only a trial will yield the complete truth.

The Limitations of the System ([11:19]–[12:07])

• Elizabeth expresses skepticism that the truth would come out regardless of the approach:
  • “I don't know if we're going to get that, whether we have a pretrial agreement or … a trial at Guantanamo… We've been in this same situation … for 13 years and we are no closer to a trial date. And that isn’t fair to anyone.” ([11:19])
  • Wishes the accused had been brought to U.S. soil originally—“at this point it would have been over.” ([11:19])
• Brett agrees on this point ([12:05]).

The Toll of Unresolved Grief ([12:07]–[12:38])

• Both describe the advocacy as “mentally taxing,” preventing healing.
  • Brett: “It makes it impossible to heal when here we are 24 years later and we're still fighting for truth. We're still fighting for justice.” ([12:22])
• Sacha Pfeiffer reminds listeners of the personal impact: “…both of you lost your father on 9/11. You both no longer have a dad because of this… families were dearly, dearly harmed on that day.” ([12:38])

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Elizabeth Miller on her dad:
  “He made everything fun, even if it was something as serious as like practicing for a fire drill.” ([01:31])
• Brett Eagleson on closure:
  “…the justice system works. It may be slow, it may feel painful, but at the end of the day … truly does what it's intended to do.” ([09:39])
• Elizabeth Miller on frustration and yearning for closure:
  “I’ve had enough waiting. I want the same information … And if the pretrial agreements actually moved forward, they had to sign this stipulation of fact, which details every little information…” ([09:44])
• Brett Eagleson on why trials matter:
  “Plea deals avoid a trial, and a trial avoids evidence.” ([07:52])
• Brett Eagleson on emotional cost:
  “It keeps revisiting old wounds and makes it impossible to heal when here we are 24 years later and we're still fighting for truth.” ([12:22])

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [00:00–02:58] – Personal recollections from Miller and Eagleson about their fathers and their aftermath.
• [04:49–05:25] – Host’s overview: why the case is stuck in limbo.
• [05:25–12:38] – In-depth conversation: Miller and Eagleson discuss plea deals vs. trials, transparency, the legal process, and the struggle for closure.

Tone and Language

The episode is empathetic, thoughtful, and earnest. Both guests candidly share personal losses and advocacy frustrations, while Sacha Pfeiffer and Ari Shapiro keep the tone respectful and focused on emotional and ethical complexity. The language is direct yet sensitive, befitting the gravity of loss and the long search for justice.

Takeaway

Nearly a quarter-century after 9/11, the families most impacted are still searching for justice, answers, and healing. Caught between a fraught military tribunal process and the competing philosophies about how best to achieve closure, their grief is compounded by the case’s endless delays.

“We’re still fighting for truth. We’re still fighting for justice.” – Brett Eagleson ([12:22])