Defense Secretary’s Move to Block Plea Deals Sets Stage for High-Stakes Legal Battle
A U.S. military judge at Guantanamo Bay has provisionally scheduled early January hearings for three alleged 9/11 plotters, including mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to enter guilty pleas in exchange for life sentences, despite recent moves by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to halt the plea agreements. The ruling by Judge Matthew McCall, an Air Force colonel, brings the long-running legal proceedings surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks back into focus and raises questions about the independence of the military commission overseeing the case.
Judge’s Decision Signals Escalating Tension Over Plea Agreements
The planned hearings are set to start on January 6 and are expected to allow Mohammed and co-defendants Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi to enter pleas if Austin’s bid to stop the deals is unsuccessful. Austin moved to reject the plea agreements earlier this year, saying the final decision on waiving the death penalty should rest with him due to the gravity of the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.
The plea deals, negotiated over two years by government prosecutors under the Defense Department’s authority, sought to avoid the risks and complexities of a death penalty trial. The agreements, which were approved by the senior official in charge of Guantanamo prosecutions, were met with sharp criticism from Republican senators and others who felt they went too far in offering life sentences instead of capital punishment.
Defense Secretary’s Intervention Raises Legal Questions
Austin’s intervention has sparked controversy, with defense attorneys arguing he overstepped his authority and potentially compromised the integrity of the proceedings. Judge McCall ruled last week that Austin’s attempt to reverse the deals was legally unsupported and came too late, given that the agreements were already approved by the Guantanamo commission’s top official.
McCall’s ruling also confirmed that the plea agreements include clauses barring any future efforts to seek the death penalty for Mohammed and another defendant, even if the deals are ultimately discarded. These clauses appear to have been included to address precisely the kind of challenge now being posed by Austin’s intervention.
Prosecution Plans to Appeal Judge’s Ruling
The Defense Department informed families of 9/11 victims last Friday that it plans to contest both the plea deals and Judge McCall’s recent ruling. Prosecutors intend to file an appeal with the military commission review court, hoping to delay the scheduled pleas and keep the door open for potential death sentences.
To accommodate the review, Judge McCall has granted a temporary delay until January, allowing time for the review panel to consider the government’s challenge. According to an anonymous U.S. official, the White House is not currently involved in the decision to appeal the ruling.
Victims’ Families Divided Over Plea Deals and Death Penalty Prospects
The ongoing legal battles highlight a divide among the families of 9/11 victims, with some urging the prosecution to seek death sentences while others see the plea agreements as a viable resolution after over two decades of delays. Legal experts have raised doubts about the feasibility of reaching a death penalty verdict, citing the complexities of the case, including CIA interrogation practices, destroyed interrogation videos, and questions about whether the defendants’ torture tainted later FBI questioning.
If the case proceeds to trial and ultimately results in a death sentence, the verdict could be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which would likely examine issues of interrogation practices, potential interference by Austin, and other procedural challenges.
