Austin scraps plea deal with 9/11 mastermind
US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin answers questions during a joint press conference following the Foreign and Defense Ministers Meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa, Japanese Defense Minister Minoru Kihara and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the Iikura Guest House in Tokyo on July 28, 2024. Austin on Friday , August 2, 2024, scrapped a plea agreement with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, just two days after the announcement of a deal that reportedly would have taken the death penalty off the table. (Photo by Kazuhiro NOGI / Agence France-Presse)
WASHINGTON, United States — US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III on Friday scrapped a plea agreement with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, just two days after the announcement of a deal that reportedly would have taken the death penalty off the table.
Agreements with Mohammed and two alleged accomplices announced Wednesday had appeared to have moved their long-running cases toward resolution – but sparked anger among some relatives of those killed on September 11, 2001.
“I have determined that, in light of the significance of the decision to enter into pre-trial agreements with the accused… responsibility for such a decision should rest with me,” Austin said in a memorandum addressed to Susan Escallier, who oversaw the case.
“I hereby withdraw from the three pre-trial agreements that you signed on July 31, 2024, in the above-referenced case,” the memo said.
READ: US says plea deal reached with 9/11 mastermind
Article continues after this advertisementThe cases against the 9/11 defendants have been bogged down in pre-trial maneuverings for years while the accused remained held at the Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba.
Article continues after this advertisementThe New York Times reported this week that Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi had agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy in exchange for a life sentence, instead of facing a trial that could lead to their executions.
Much of the legal jousting surrounding the men’s cases has focused on whether they could be tried fairly after having undergone methodical torture at the hands of the CIA in the years after 9/11.
