A military appeals court has upheld plea agreements for 9/11 co-conspirators, overruling Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s attempt to invalidate the deals.
At a Glance
- Military appeals court preserves plea deals for 9/11 co-conspirators
- Agreements allow defendants to avoid death penalty
- Court rules Defense Secretary Austin lacked authority to rescind deals
- Decision highlights complex legal landscape at Guantanamo Bay
- Pentagon considering options, including potential appeal
Court Upholds Controversial Plea Agreements
In a significant ruling, a U.S. military appeals court has maintained plea agreements for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other men accused of planning the September 11, 2001 attacks. The decision comes despite Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s efforts to invalidate these deals, which would allow the defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges and avoid the death penalty.
The Court of Military Commission Review found that Austin overstepped his authority when he attempted to rescind the agreements made by Susan Escallier, the convening authority for military commissions. The court’s ruling supports a lower court’s decision to allow the defendants to proceed with their plea deals, dealing a blow to the Defense Department’s stance on the matter.
NEW: A U.S. military court on Monday upheld a judge’s ruling that said Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin acted improperly this year when he invalidated plea agreements for three men accused of planning the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.https://t.co/KTo0pjY4g3
— Gary Grumbach (@GaryGrumbach) December 31, 2024
Unprecedented Intervention and Legal Complexities
The court’s decision highlighted the unprecedented nature of Austin’s intervention in the pretrial agreements. Chief Judge Lisa M. Schenck of the Court of Military Commission Review described Austin’s actions as “without precedent.” This ruling underscores the complex legal landscape surrounding the Guantanamo Bay commission, particularly regarding evidence potentially tainted by allegations of torture.
The plea agreements, reached after two years of negotiations, were announced last summer. Supporters view these deals as a potential resolution to the legally intricate case at Guantanamo Bay, where pretrial hearings have been ongoing for over a decade. The focus of these hearings has largely been on the impact of torture on evidence admissibility.
Pentagon’s Response and Future Implications
In response to the court’s decision, the Pentagon is now considering its options, including a potential appeal. The Defense Department has requested a pause on the matter until January 27, indicating that they may seek to challenge the ruling further. Austin’s attempt to nullify the plea deals was based on the gravity of the 9/11 attacks, which resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths and led to U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The ruling not only affects the immediate case of the 9/11 co-conspirators but also has broader implications for the ongoing efforts to address longstanding legal and procedural issues at Guantanamo Bay. It comes at a time when the U.S. government is actively working to reduce the detainee population at the facility, with recent transfers and repatriations bringing the total number of detainees down to 26 from a peak of about 700.
A U.S. military court on Monday upheld a judge’s ruling that said Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin acted improperly this year when he invalidated plea agreements for three men accused of planning the 9/11 attacks. https://t.co/MtaEnW3r7x
— NBC News (@NBCNews) January 1, 2025