News Mania Desk/Agnibeena Ghosh/3rd August 2024
A contentious plea deal for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, has been overturned by the US government following significant backlash from politicians and victims’ families. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced the decision to reinstate the possibility of death penalty cases for Mohammed and his accused accomplices, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi.
This reversal comes just two days after a military commission at Guantanamo Bay, led by retired Brigadier General Susan Escallier, had approved the plea deals. These agreements, disclosed in letters sent to the families of nearly 3,000 victims of the attacks, stipulated that the defendants would serve life sentences at most. This announcement sparked outrage among some families, who felt the deal denied the possibility of full trials and death penalties.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, regarded by the US as the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks, had been expected to formally enter his plea under the deal as soon as next week. However, Secretary Austin, citing the gravity of the decision, asserted his authority to nullify Escallier’s approval. He stated, “In light of the significance of the decision, I have decided that the authority to make a decision on accepting the plea agreements is mine.”
The announcement was met with swift criticism from Republican politicians. Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a member of the Armed Services Committee, denounced the plea deal as “disgraceful” on social media. He also introduced legislation mandating that the 9/11 defendants face trial with the possibility of the death penalty. The White House, however, claimed it had no prior knowledge of the plea agreement.
The military commission overseeing the cases of the five defendants involved in the September 11 attacks has been entangled in pre-trial hearings and other preliminary court actions since 2008. The torture the defendants endured while in CIA custody has been a significant factor in the delays, complicating the prospect of full trials and verdicts due to the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through torture.
- Wells Dixon, a staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights who has represented Guantanamo defendants, welcomed the plea bargains as a practical resolution to the protracted and legally complex 9/11 cases. Dixon accused Austin of succumbing to political pressure and causing additional distress for some victims’ families by rescinding the deal.
For approximately a year and a half, lawyers for both sides have been exploring a negotiated resolution. President Joe Biden had previously blocked a proposed plea bargain last year, refusing to offer presidential guarantees that the men would be spared solitary confinement and provided trauma care for the torture they endured in CIA custody.
A fourth defendant at Guantanamo was still negotiating a possible plea agreement, while the military commission last year ruled that a fifth defendant was mentally unfit to stand trial. A military medical panel cited post-traumatic stress disorder and psychosis, linking these conditions to torture and four years of solitary confinement in CIA custody before the defendant’s transfer to Guantanamo.
As the situation evolves, the US government’s decision to nullify the plea agreements underscores the ongoing complexity and emotional weight of seeking justice for the devastating events of September 11, 2001. The push for full trials and potential death penalties reflects the desire for accountability, yet the process remains fraught with legal and ethical challenges, particularly concerning the treatment of detainees and the admissibility of evidence obtained under duress.
