Janice R. Andrews
CUBA GUANTÁNAMO BAY — The long-running case against the 9/11 plotters took an unexpected turn last week over the course of three dramatic days, upsetting the relatives of the victims and reigniting political arguments. At first, a plea agreement approved by a Pentagon officer would have resulted in life terms for the defendants. But, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin quickly reversed the ruling, reviving the prospect of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-defendants facing the death sentence.
This sudden change has brought a case that has been in pretrial limbo for more than ten years back into the public glare and created uncertainty about the timeline for the much anticipated Guantánamo Bay trial.
Wednesday: The Surprising Grant
There was no hint of the dramatic shifts that were to occur as the day got underway. A former Army soldier spoke during a closed court at Guantánamo Bay about his time spent working at the covert facility where the defendants have been detained since 2006. In the 9/11 case, this was the 51st pretrial court session.
Susan K. Escallier, a retired brigadier general and top Defense Department official in charge of military commissions, authorized a plea offer at the same time at an office close to the Pentagon. Under this mostly undisclosed arrangement, the defendants would have forfeited their right to an appeal of their convictions in return for the government not pursuing the death sentence.
Family members of the 2,976 September 11 fatalities were notified promptly by the war crimes prosecutor’s office. The deal was explained to one family member as “the best worst option.” In a letter to the families of the victims, the prosecutors said that they had carefully considered all options and decided that the plea agreement was the best way to bring justice and closure to the case.
Defense Secretary Austin was coming back from an Asian tour at this time. He was told about the deal that had been struck and the upcoming announcement as his plane approached Washington, D.C. Startled and unprepared for this turn of events, Austin gave his team the order to investigate the Department’s possibilities.
Traditionally, the defense secretary has the ability to convene military trials; but, Austin, like his predecessors, had assigned this responsibility to an outside attorney named Escallier. Austin’s airplane touched down in the midst of a storm of political criticism by late afternoon. Interestingly, the agreement was denounced by Senator Mitch McConnell as a “revolting abdication of the government’s responsibility.”
Distancing itself from the decision, the White House said in a statement that it was not involved but that it will start to inquire.
Thursday: A Split Country
The group of 9/11 relatives felt a tremor when they learned of the plea agreement. Feelings varied from relief to rage. Teresa Vigiano, whose sister died in the towers, was relieved that the torture-tainted case would only be settled by life sentences. Kathleen Vigiano, who lost her husband and brother-in-law in the attacks, expressed displeasure.
The prosecution brought the deal to the attention of Judge Col. Matthew N. McCall at Guantánamo Bay and urged a prompt formalization of the pleas in court. On the other hand, political resistance was growing. While Representative James Comer launched an investigation into any White House participation in Escallier’s decision, Senator Tom Cotton called the action a disgrace.
As night fell, the focus briefly changed to President Biden and Vice President Harris welcoming three Americans who had been exchanged for prisoners from Russia.
Friday: The Opposition Increases
Opposition to the plea agreement grew stronger by Friday. Terry Strada, a strong supporter of 9/11 Families United, disagreed with the deal because she thought it would result in the release of more prisoners. She demanded that the death penalty be brought back.
Austin and his colleagues came up with a solution at the Pentagon. Austin took a bold step and canceled the plea deal, taking away Escallier’s ability to make agreements on the 9/11 case. Escallier lost her authority in this important case, but she is still in charge of other court administrative decisions.
News reports informed prosecutors and defense lawyers of the judgment, while family members felt a mixture of relief and dismay.
Saturday: The Emotional and Legal Repercussions
Family members who were in favor of the agreement voiced shock at the turnabout. Austin’s judgment was condemned by the American Civil Liberties Union, which described it as a foolish pursuit of an impossible death sentence case. Joel Shapiro, whose spouse perished in the assaults, charged Austin with having political agendas.
In their defense of the ruling, Defense Department representatives emphasized the value of an open and transparent trial for the families and the general public. They pointed out that during prior plea talks, Austin had turned down demands made by the 9/11 defendants.
Legal teams from both sides began preparing for the next moves in this drawn-out and intricate case as the weekend went on.
Final Thoughts
The abrupt reversal of the 9/11 plea agreement highlights the case’s ongoing complexity and emotional significance. The road to justice for the victims’ families is still paved with obstacles, both political and judicial. The pursuit of a final settlement is ongoing as the case comes back into the public eye, but the events of that fatal day in 2001 continue to loom large over the proceedings.
