Three high-profile terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mustafa al-Hawsawi, and Walid bin Attash — are claiming that the U.S. Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin, lacks the authority to rescind their plea deal agreements. These agreements, signed by retired General Susan K. Escallier on July 31, were countersigned by a Defense Department official authorized to approve such deals.
National Review reports that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect behind the 9/11 attacks, along with al-Hawsawi and bin Attash, assert that their plea agreements became binding contracts once signed by General Escallier. Appointed by Austin to oversee the military commissions, Escallier’s signature supposedly solidified the agreements. The terrorists argue that Austin’s subsequent rescission of these agreements constitutes improper command influence.
The Defense Department’s public announcement of the plea agreements ignited intense backlash from senior congressional Republicans and 9/11 families, accusing the Biden administration of national security failings. Seeking to mitigate political damage, Austin announced on August 2 that he was rescinding the plea deals and removing Escallier’s authority to approve such agreements, assuming this power himself.
Lawyers for the terrorists argue that they have a binding agreement with the government and claim Austin’s actions are an overreach of authority. Judge Colonel Matthew N. McCall has permitted defense counsel to investigate Austin’s decision to rescind the plea agreements, emphasizing that “Everybody must follow the rules, including the Secretary of Defense.”
The situation poses a significant challenge for the White House and Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign. The administration maintains that Austin acted independently out of strong personal convictions about the 9/11 attacks, yet the narrative is met with skepticism.
The involvement of top administration officials in negotiating the plea agreements raises questions about whether Austin and the White House were aware of or involved in the initial approval. The Defense Department will likely argue that Austin had the authority to rescind the agreements, emphasizing that plea agreements are not binding until the defendant pleads guilty according to their terms.
This controversy adds to the already complex legal proceedings against the 9/11 terrorists, who are challenging the admissibility of evidence obtained through harsh interrogation methods. Prosecutors must navigate claims of prisoner abuse and now, potential improper command influence in plea negotiations.
