November 7th 2024.
A military judge, Air Force Col. Matthew McCall, has declared that the plea agreements made by alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his two co-defendants are valid. This decision overturns an order from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to throw out the deals. The official who shared this information spoke on the condition of anonymity, as the judge's decision has not yet been officially announced or made public.
This ruling means that Mohammed, along with his co-defendants Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, could soon enter guilty pleas in the U.S. military courtroom at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This would be a significant step towards resolving the long-running and legally complicated government prosecution for one of the deadliest attacks on the United States.
The plea agreements were negotiated by government prosecutors and defense attorneys, and they were approved by the top official for the military commission at Guantanamo Bay naval base. These deals would spare the defendants from the death penalty in exchange for their guilty pleas.
However, when the plea agreements were made public this summer, they faced immediate backlash from Republican lawmakers and others. In response, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued a brief order declaring them null and void. Austin believed that decisions regarding plea bargains in death penalty cases should only be made by the defense secretary.
This entire situation has added to the already complicated and troubled prosecution, which has faced delays and legal challenges. This includes years of pretrial hearings to determine the admissibility of statements made by the defendants while they were in CIA custody and being tortured.
The Pentagon is currently reviewing the judge's decision and has not made any further comments. The New York Times was the first to report the ruling, but the judge's decision has not yet been posted on the Guantanamo military commission's website. However, a legal blog that has been closely following the proceedings stated that McCall's 29-page ruling concluded that Austin did not have the legal authority to nullify the plea deals.
The blog, called Lawdragon, also reported that the judge found the timing of Austin's decision to be "fatal," as it came after the top official at Guantanamo had already approved the plea agreements. The judge also stated that giving defense secretaries the power to veto any decision they disagree with would go against the independence of the presiding official over the Guantanamo trials.
While some families of the victims and others believe that the 9/11 prosecutions should continue until trial and possible death sentences, legal experts are unsure if that will ever happen. Even if the cases do make it through trial and sentencing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will likely have to address the many issues raised, including the CIA's destruction of interrogation videos and whether Austin's decision to nullify the plea deals was unlawful interference. There are also questions about whether the defendants' torture tainted evidence gathered by "clean teams" of FBI agents who did not use violence.
In addition to the ruling by Col. McCall, AP writer Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report. Stay informed about Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
