FORT MEADE, Md. (AP) — Military-run hearings for accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two co-defendants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were in upheaval Wednesday following Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's decision to throw out a plea agreement.
Defense attorneys argue that the plea deal remains valid and have suspended participation in the pre-trial hearings while legal challenges to Austin's action are ongoing. Prosecutors have also raised concerns that the pre-trial hearings may need to be halted as lawyers seek clarification on Austin's order and address the issues it has raised.
The judge overseeing the case, Air Force Col. Matthew McCall, has acknowledged worries about external pressures on the proceedings. The plea agreement, which would have spared the defendants from facing the death penalty, and Austin's subsequent order have sparked strong reactions, including among the families of Sept. 11 victims. The Biden administration has faced criticism, particularly from Republicans, over the plea deal.
McCall emphasized during Wednesday's hearing that any additional political pressure could potentially constitute illegal interference in the case. Despite external influences, he stated that his decisions would remain unaffected. Reporters were able to observe the proceedings from Fort Meade, Maryland.
These recent events mark the latest disruption in the U.S. military's prosecution of individuals accused in the 2001 attacks that claimed nearly 3,000 lives. The military commission handling the 9/11 defendants has faced challenges stemming from the unique circumstances and legal complexities of the case, including issues related to the defendants' torture while in CIA custody.
Last week, the Pentagon's chief authority over the Guantanamo Bay military commission approved a plea agreement between military-appointed prosecutors and defense attorneys after two years of negotiations. However, Austin's order on Friday overturned this approval, citing the case's significance and asserting direct control over such decisions moving forward.
Defense lawyers and legal analysts are questioning the legality of Austin's intervention in the Guantanamo proceedings. Some argue that external criticisms, including from Republican circles and certain victims' families, may have influenced Austin's decision. Austin defended his actions by emphasizing the gravity of the losses suffered in the 9/11 attacks and subsequent U.S. military engagements.
Defense attorneys informed McCall on Wednesday that they consider the plea agreement to be still in effect. McCall excused them from participating in the pre-trial hearings while anticipated challenges to Austin's actions are addressed.
Lead attorney Gary Sowards cautioned that the legal process resulting from Austin's intervention could prolong the already lengthy case, which has spanned over a decade. Another defense attorney, Walter Ruiz, criticized Austin's order as unprecedented and raised concerns about potential ethical implications of continuing engagement in the Pentagon-run commission.
Under the plea agreement, Mohammed, Hawsawi, and bin Attash would have pleaded guilty in exchange for the government not seeking the death penalty. Defense attorneys highlighted that the agreement would have required the accused to address any remaining questions about the attacks from victims' families and others.
Following the initial disruptions on Wednesday, the hearing proceeded with the examination of an FBI witness, with only one defendant, Aamar al Baluchi, actively participating in the defense, as he had not accepted the plea agreement.
