The abrupt reversal of a 9/11 plea deal last week left victims’ families reeling while raising political questions for the Pentagon and the Biden administration.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s cancellation on Friday of the deal that would have taken the death penalty off the table for three prisoners accused of helping plan the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks – a deal announced just two days earlier – was described as “emotional whiplash” for family members who supported the plan.
The plea agreement was intended to resolve the case with life sentences for the man accused of planning the attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and two accused accomplices.
But the negative reaction from Republicans and victims’ families, who considered the plea deal too lenient for the defendants, along with the administration’s sudden about-face, thrust the case back into the public spotlight.
Here are five key takeaways and questions that remain.
9/11 settlement attempted to resolve long-delayed case
The agreement reached between the Office of Military Commissions between Mohammad, also known as KSM, and two of his accomplices involved life sentences, allowing them to avoid the death penalty.
The settlements were an effort to bring an end to long-running cases that some doubt will ever come to an end.
KSM is accused of being the main mastermind of the deadly September 11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. Two of his accomplices who struck the deal are also accused of helping plan the attacks, while two other prisoners were charged in the case but failed to reach a plea deal last week.
All five defendants have been detained since the early 2000s and are now being held at the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba. They were charged in 2008 and again in 2012, but are being held in pre-trial proceedings.
Retired Brigadier. General Susan Escallier, a lawyer and Pentagon official responsible for military commissions, signed the plea agreement with the three men, the contents of which were largely secret. This was followed by the 51st round of pretrial hearings, a closed court session that did not involve any defendants.
Shortly after Escallier approved the settlement, family members of 9/11 victims were notified by phone, and one of those individuals was told that the settlement was “the best and worst option,” The New York Times reported.
And in a letter to family members, survivors of the attacks and other victims, such as New York City firefighters, prosecutors said they did not take the decision “lightly.”
Austin was returning home from the Philippines after a week-long trip to Asia and found out about the deal at the end of the flight.
Austin’s order, released Friday night, nullified previous agreements.
Austin has final authority above Escallier, the head of the Pentagon’s Convening Authority, which oversees the Office of Military Commissions created after 9/11 to prosecute foreign individuals on terrorism charges.
Republican reaction
Just hours after the plea deal was announced Wednesday night, Republicans criticized the Biden administration and accused them of failing to stand up to terrorists.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConell (R-Ky.) released statements criticizing the deal and said it would embolden terrorists.
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to Austin demanding answers about how the plea deal was reached.
Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), Chairman of the House Oversight Committee,opened a formal investigationof the plea deal and sent a letter to President Biden requesting relevant records, communications and information.
After Austin revoked the plea deal, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and McConnell released ajoint statementsaying they were “happy” that the Defense Secretary had “come to his senses” but threatened to move forward with the legislation if another deal was reached.
“The President should know that we continue to monitor this situation closely,” the lawmakers wrote in the statement. “OJustice for 9/11 Actis introduced, and if the Administration changes course, we stand ready to nullify any future dastardly deals with the murderous mastermind of that tragic day.”
Some Democrats, however, are upset about Austin’s reversal.
“I urge Secretary Austin to reverse this deeply disappointing decision, which denies finality and justice to the 9/11 families and once again exposes the lack of independence that has haunted the military commissions since the beginning.”he wroteSenator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on social media platform X.
Austin surprised by deal
Austin was “surprised” by the US military commission’s decision, according to Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh.
The Pentagon chief “was certainly surprised like the rest of us,” Singh told reporters on Monday. She later added, “This is a case of such importance that the secretary thought it appropriate for the authority to stay with it.”
Austin’s timing, after Republicans and victims’ families had criticized the administration and before a contentious presidential election, raised questions about whether the move was largely politically motivated.
The White House has sidestepped questions about what role it may have played in Austin’s decision to rescind the plea deal, with national security spokesman John Kirby saying Sunday that the move was not Biden’s to make.
“This was a decision by the Secretary of Defense. It was an independent decision of his, certainly within his authorities, like the chain of command at the Department of Defense,” Kirby told Jacqui Heinrich on “Fox News Sunday.”
Singh also said Austin made the decision on his own and said he was not aware of any conversations with Biden.
“This is not something the secretary was consulted about,” Singh said. “We didn’t know that the prosecution or the defense would enter into the terms of the plea agreement.”
Whip for families
Although some family members of 9/11 victims appeared pleased with the administration’s decision, those who supported the settlement were shocked by the reversal.
“The men who perpetrated the deaths of thousands of people on 9/11; men who never uttered a word of remorse should be justly punished. But what happened this week to the 9/11 families was emotional whiplash,” the group 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, which supported the plea deal, said in a statement.
While the plea deal was not the outcome originally hoped for, it offered a path to finality. The group said it was struck down in a move that “betrays members of the 9/11 family” and “undermines the very government lawyers tasked with prosecuting this case.”
“Our greatest concerns today are for this country, for the future of our children and grandchildren when legal principles are compromised,” they wrote.
Other families have previously expressed anger at the settlement, saying it circumvents their desire for a trial to show in detail what happened in the 9/11 attacks, which saw hijacked planes crash into the Twin Towers in New York City, a field in Shanksville, Pa., and the Pentagon.
A group of family members, the 9/11 Judge, were concerned that they could not obtain any information from KSM and the other two defendants to help with their ongoing civil case seeking to link Saudi Arabia to the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Terry Strada, national president of 9/11 Families United, said Austin’s repeal was “a relief to many families like mine who have fought tirelessly for justice and for our voices to be heard.”
“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his associates should show the same mercy they showed my husband and the thousands of others they brutally murdered on 9/11 – none,”she said in a statement.“We are grateful to Secretary Austin for doing the right thing and listening to the voices of the 9/11 community.”
Strada’s organization also seeks justice against Saudi Arabia and supportsone accountThis would allow plaintiffs to more easily sue any person or entity, including another country, for aiding and abetting terrorism.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is also against Austin’s revocation of the plea deal, saying he “avoided a guilty verdict.”
“This rash act also violates the law and we will challenge it in court,” the ACLU said in a statementsaying the policy “dishonored an agreement reached after years of hard work and meticulous consultation by all parties involved”.
Case will likely get bogged down in pre-trial proceedings
It is unclear how the case will develop now, but the military commission has struggled for years to bring the defendants to trial and the case could be delayed for lengthy legal proceedings.
The military commission has also generally struggled to secure convictions. Only eight people were convicted of terrorism-related cases in the post-9/11 commission, and four of them were overturned.
Only one person has been convicted in relation to the 9/11 cases, Zacarias Moussaoui, known as the 20th hijacker, who was detained in August 2001, before the plane attacks.
In KSM’s case, the US was accused of torturing him in Guantánamo Bay, including simulated waterboarding. Any evidence from interrogations may not be admissible in court.
Although the Pentagon has acknowledged years of delays in this case, Austin wants a trial, Singh said Monday.
“He believes the families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see the military commission trials carried out in this case,” she said. “If we can move to testing – and this is ongoing and has been going on for many, many years – but that is what he believes is the best course of action.”
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
