In a recent development, a U.S. military court has affirmed a previous ruling that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin overstepped his bounds earlier this year by nullifying plea deals involving three individuals tied to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The Court of Military Commission Review deliberated on an appeal regarding Secretary Austin’s attempt in August to discard plea agreements with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi. These agreements offered the defendants the chance to admit guilt to lesser offenses, sparing them from potential death sentences.
Ultimately, the panel of three judges determined that Secretary Austin did not possess the authority to reverse agreements set by Susan Escallier. Having been appointed the convening authority for military commissions by the defense secretary last year, Escallier played a pivotal role in orchestrating these plea agreements.
The court made it clear that Secretary Austin’s decision to retract these negotiations came after they were already in progress, which they deemed inappropriate. Chief Judge Lisa M. Schenck, in a decision supported by her fellow judges, asserted that such interference by Austin in established pretrial agreements was unprecedented.
When asked for a response, the Defense Department chose not to comment on this decision on Tuesday.
This ruling supports a lower court’s decision from the previous month that the defendants should be permitted to pursue their plea agreements. These individuals face accusations of actively participating in and planning the horrific 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and other targets.
The court ruling mentioned that information regarding the plea agreements was shared with them on August 1. However, the following day, Secretary Austin took back Escallier’s authority to formalize the agreements.
At that time, Austin remarked, “Responsibility for such a decision should rest with me.”
The court concluded that for Austin to dismantle such an arrangement retroactively would not only be unjust but also beyond his scope of authority. The ruling emphasized that there is no backing within military justice for a system that allows a convening authority to negotiate deals, only for a superior to later negate them — reinforcing Escallier’s essential role.
