Pentagon Chief Lloyd Austin Revokes Plea Deal for Accused 9/11 Plotters

In a dramatic turn of events, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has revoked a controversial plea agreement for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other defendants accused of orchestrating the September 11, 2001, attacks. This decision, announced in a memo to Susan Escallier, who oversees the war court proceedings, effectively reinstates the possibility of death penalty cases for the accused.

The short-lived plea deal, which had been in place for mere days, came after 16 years of protracted legal proceedings against the defendants. On Wednesday, Escallier had signed an agreement with Mohammed and his alleged accomplices, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al-Hawsawi. The defense lawyers had requested life sentences for their clients in exchange for guilty pleas.

Austin's memo, issued on Friday, emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating, "Due to 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."

The initial plea deal had polarized opinion, particularly among the families of 9/11 victims. Some viewed it as destroying any chance of a full trial that could have resulted in death sentences and provided an opportunity for victims' families to address the accused directly. Terry Kay Rockefeller, 74, whose sister Laura perished on 9/11, told the Washington Post, "I would have liked a trial of men who hadn't been tortured, but we got handed a really poor opportunity for justice, and this is a way to verdicts and finality."

The agreement had also drawn sharp criticism from Republican lawmakers. Senators Mitch McConnell and JD Vance decried the deal, while New York Representative Elise Stefanik accused the current administration of betraying the American people.

J Wells Dixon, a staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights who has represented Guantánamo Bay defendants, had initially welcomed the plea bargains as the only feasible way to resolve the long-stalled and legally complex 9/11 cases. However, following Austin's decision, Dixon accused the Defense Secretary of "bowing to political pressure and pushing some victim family members over an emotional cliff" by rescinding the plea deals.

The path to this point has been long and fraught with complications. Lawyers for both sides have been exploring a negotiated resolution to the case for over a year. In a previous development, President Joe Biden had blocked a proposed plea bargain last year when he refused to offer requested presidential guarantees that the men would be spared solitary confinement and provided trauma care for the torture they underwent while in CIA custody.

A senior Pentagon official, speaking to the New York Times, emphasized that neither the President nor the Vice President had any involvement in Austin's decision to rescind the controversial deal.

The revocation of the plea deal comes just days before Mohammed and the other defendants were expected to formally enter their pleas. Mohammed stands accused of masterminding the plot to fly hijacked commercial passenger aircraft into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon. The 9/11 attacks resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths and led to the United States' two-decade-long military engagement in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military commission overseeing the cases of five defendants in the 9/11 attacks has been mired in pre-trial hearings and other preliminary court actions since 2008. The torture that the defendants underwent while in CIA custody has significantly slowed the legal proceedings and cast doubt on the prospect of full trials and verdicts. This is partly due to the inadmissibility of evidence linked to the torture.

As the legal landscape shifts once again, the path forward remains uncertain. The decision to revoke the plea deal reopens questions about how justice can be served in a case that has already stretched over two decades. It also reignites debates about the treatment of detainees, the admissibility of evidence, and the broader implications for America's approach to counterterrorism and international law.

The eyes of the world, and particularly those of the 9/11 victims' families, remain fixed on these proceedings as they enter yet another complex phase. The coming weeks and months are likely to see intense legal maneuvering and public debate as all parties grapple with the implications of this latest development in one of the most significant criminal cases in U.S. history.