Three accused of plotting 9/11 attacks on the US have entered into a pre-trial agreement

Probably a reward for some intelligence they gave the US but. how much or how useful has it been at this point. One of the biggest remaining questions would exactly how involved were the Saudis.
 
Probably a reward for some intelligence they gave the US but. how much or how useful has it been at this point. One of the biggest remaining questions would exactly how involved were the Saudis.
I thought I remember all 19 involved were Saudi ?

That said ..... all 19 should be dead ...... a long time ago.
 

It was amazing to hear WH briefing statement that it was a handled by the Justice department and the WH had no part in it. It is sad that our government has become so unreliable.
 
I read some of the victims’ families reactions yesterday. I completely understand their rage over this. Some of them just want them dead. I don’t think history will smile on how 2001 to now has been handled.
 
Why such a plea arrangement would even be entertained is unfathomable. Now we learn that it is being walked back, revoked by Sec. Def. Is it any wonder that persons on both sides of the aisle are confused about who is running our country? I think the greater question is why after almost 23 years these individuals have not been tried, convicted and sentences carried out.
 
Why such a plea arrangement would even be entertained is unfathomable. Now we learn that it is being walked back, revoked by Sec. Def. Is it any wonder that persons on both sides of the aisle are confused about who is running our country? I think the greater question is why after almost 23 years these individuals have not been tried, convicted and sentences carried out.
Because, like it or not, the legal system has more and more become about making deals.

A defense lawyer(s) can delay things interminably trying to get the best deal for their client. I see this in local news often - some horrible person was arrested 3, 4, 5 years ago, I remember the story, and now finally they are being sentenced. WHY? Why did it take that long? Because the defendant was holding out for the best deal. That's how it happens locally.

If you were the defendant, you’d call that lawyer a “good lawyer”.

If you are the victim or the victim’s family, you call that lawyer by other names.

This is the maddening thing, IMO, if you ever study law. You study it, read the cases, read the legal code, and you think it’s all set up for justice. LOL. :rolleyes:

But in reality, it’s all set up for players and deals. It is all a game to many lawyers, just like the economy is a game to many investors. It’s like the more you know about how it works, the more heartbreaking it can be, IMO.
 
It was amazing to hear WH briefing statement that it was a handled by the Justice department and the WH had no part in it. It is sad that our government has become so unreliable.
If this plea deal was handled by the justice department as the WH stated, why did the SecDef revoke the deal?
 
Defense department rescinded the offer. Too much negative feedback was the explained answer.
Military justice. Think the General was relieved ? The thing has been going on a long time due
to water boarding I believe.
 
Why such a plea arrangement would even be entertained is unfathomable. Now we learn that it is being walked back, revoked by Sec. Def. Is it any wonder that persons on both sides of the aisle are confused about who is running our country? I think the greater question is why after almost 23 years these individuals have not been tried, convicted and sentences carried out.
Because, like it or not, the legal system has more and more become about making deals.

A defense lawyer(s) can delay things interminably trying to get the best deal for their client. I see this in local news often - some horrible person was arrested 3, 4, 5 years ago, I remember the story, and now finally they are being sentenced. WHY? Why did it take that long? Because the defendant was holding out for the best deal. That's how it happens locally.

If you were the defendant, you’d call that lawyer a “good lawyer”.

If you are the victim or the victim’s family, you call that lawyer by other names.

This is the maddening thing, IMO, if you ever study law. You study it, read the cases, read the legal code, and you think it’s all set up for justice. LOL. :rolleyes:

But in reality, it’s all set up for players and deals. It is all a game to many lawyers, just like the economy is a game to many investors. It’s like the more you know about how it works, the more heartbreaking it can be, IMO.
That's true, Vintage, but there's the fact that all defendants can file a seemingly endless stream of motions, continuances, requests for adjournments, arguments for allowing and disallowing evidence, and various other tactics that delay a trial. Everyone accused of a crime in the US has a long list of rights as a person who is presumed innocent even when it's obvious they're not, and if they have a good law team, which these guys obviously did, they can invoke every one of those rights repeatedly until they've either exhausted them all or exceeded a time limit.

That exhausts the courts and costs the courts time, resources, and money. Most of it public money. At some point, they have to relent, often because they can't afford not to.
 
Those who lost loved ones on that fateful day should have a hand in punishing these bastards. It's been over 20 years and they are still under the care of the USA - what's wrong with this picture?

I don't believe our parents would have tolerated this treatment to the perpetrators of Pearl Harbor, or the Holocaust.
 
Those who lost loved ones on that fateful day should have a hand in punishing these bastards. It's been over 20 years and they are still under the care of the USA - what's wrong with this picture?

I don't believe our parents would have tolerated this treatment to the perpetrators of Pearl Harbor, or the Holocaust.

I don't know the full story here, but this is what baffles me too. It's been so long, what's the hold up?

Still, we have to believe in our system of justice. But something, clearly, has gone wrong here.
 
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has dramatically revoked a proposed plea deal for the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

Austin said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two accomplices were no longer eligible for life sentences in prison without the prospect of the death penalty in return for a guilty plea.

They were offered the deal just two days ago, on Wednesday, triggering widespread outrage.

Austin also relieved the official responsible for the plea deal of her duties. Retired Brigadier General Susan K Escallier will no longer oversee the case, with Austin himself assuming responsibility for it.

The development was first reported by The New York Times Friday evening.

Friday's shock U-turn means Mohammed and his accomplices - Walid Bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawasawi - could once again face the death penalty.


88104821-13704367-Brigadier_General_ret_Susan_K_Escallier-a-19_1722645542630.jpg
88104807-13704367-image-m-18_1722645458893.jpg

Brigadier General (ret.) Susan K Escallier (left) offered the three suspects the plea deals Wednesday. She has now been taken off the case by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin (right)


Announcing the revocation of the plea deal, Austin told the Times that the high stakes nature of the case means 'the responsibility for such a decision should rest with me.'

He added: 'Effective immediately, in the exercise of my authority, I hereby withdraw from the three pretrial agreements that you signed on July 31, 2024.'

Wednesday's plea deal announcement was the culmination of two years of negotiations between prosecutors and defense attorneys.

The case has been bogged down in pre-trial hearings since 2012.

All three suspects have been held in Guantanamo Bay since the early 2000s.

News of Wednesday's plea deal left families of many of the 3,000 murdered in the September 2001 terror attacks 'deeply troubled.'

Some were angered that the option to execute the suspected terrorists had been removed.

And many said they feared the deal means they'd never find out who was really behind the attacks on New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania, amid suspicions that Saudi Arabia was deeply-involved in the terror spectacular.

9/11 Justice President Brett Eagleson told DailyMail.com in a statement that his group remains furious at the administration for keeping victims' families in the dark.
88016327-13704367-Walid_Bin_Attash-a-10_1722644622773.jpg
88016323-13704367-Mustafa_al_Hawsawi-a-11_1722644622804.jpg


Walid Bin Attash (left) and Mustafa al Hawasi (right) both now face new trials following the collapsed plea deal. They've been held in Guantanamo Bay since the early 2000s
 
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Nationals. The families of the passengers have filed suit against the Kingdom who deny all responsibility.
As you have read above, the deal that was made by Brigadier General (ret.) Susan K Escallier was announce premature and is being revised. After all, after the premature deal was announced and the amount of contempt by the public was shown, the deal was cancelled by Lloyd Austin.

This is an election year, if that decision had anything to do with it it not, I do not know.
 
There is a line that reads——The case has been bogged down in pre-trial hearings since 2012.

Taking 11 years for a pre trial is almost ridiculous.
One excuse is they didn't want a spectacle with protests or give the suspects a forum when they presented their defense. Another was they were worried about security.
 
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has dramatically revoked a proposed plea deal for the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

Austin said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two accomplices were no longer eligible for life sentences in prison without the prospect of the death penalty in return for a guilty plea.

They were offered the deal just two days ago, on Wednesday, triggering widespread outrage.

Austin also relieved the official responsible for the plea deal of her duties. Retired Brigadier General Susan K Escallier will no longer oversee the case, with Austin himself assuming responsibility for it.

The development was first reported by The New York Times Friday evening.

Friday's shock U-turn means Mohammed and his accomplices - Walid Bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawasawi - could once again face the death penalty.


88104821-13704367-Brigadier_General_ret_Susan_K_Escallier-a-19_1722645542630.jpg
88104807-13704367-image-m-18_1722645458893.jpg

Brigadier General (ret.) Susan K Escallier (left) offered the three suspects the plea deals Wednesday. She has now been taken off the case by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin (right)


Announcing the revocation of the plea deal, Austin told the Times that the high stakes nature of the case means 'the responsibility for such a decision should rest with me.'

He added: 'Effective immediately, in the exercise of my authority, I hereby withdraw from the three pretrial agreements that you signed on July 31, 2024.'

Wednesday's plea deal announcement was the culmination of two years of negotiations between prosecutors and defense attorneys.

The case has been bogged down in pre-trial hearings since 2012.

All three suspects have been held in Guantanamo Bay since the early 2000s.

News of Wednesday's plea deal left families of many of the 3,000 murdered in the September 2001 terror attacks 'deeply troubled.'

Some were angered that the option to execute the suspected terrorists had been removed.

And many said they feared the deal means they'd never find out who was really behind the attacks on New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania, amid suspicions that Saudi Arabia was deeply-involved in the terror spectacular.

9/11 Justice President Brett Eagleson told DailyMail.com in a statement that his group remains furious at the administration for keeping victims' families in the dark.
88016327-13704367-Walid_Bin_Attash-a-10_1722644622773.jpg
88016323-13704367-Mustafa_al_Hawsawi-a-11_1722644622804.jpg


Walid Bin Attash (left) and Mustafa al Hawasi (right) both now face new trials following the collapsed plea deal. They've been held in Guantanamo Bay since the early 2000s
Yes, I mentioned that it was revoked in my reply #13 , but I only posted the link.,
 
One excuse is they didn't want a spectacle with protests or give the suspects a forum when they presented their defense. Another was they were worried about security.
That’s a poor excuse to detain hearings and a trial. Most of their time was spent in Gitmo.
What defense did they have? This sounds bogus to me. I have my own suspicions as to why the litigation has been held, but why waste the ink to print them? Taking 23 years to reach an agreement is pretty obvious that it’s not all about constitutional measures.

They (the prisoners) had the right to a speedy trial. Why didn’t they invoke their rights? They complained enough about being stuck on Gitmo, so if they would have invoked their rights to a speedy trial. It could have been settled long before 23 years.
 
They (the prisoners) had the right to a speedy trial. Why didn’t they invoke their rights? They complained enough about being stuck on Gitmo, so if they would have invoked their rights to a speedy trial. It could have been settled long before 23 years.

Some research produces complicated legal issues. Was Habeas Corpus permitted or not? Being detained on soil of a Foreign Sovereign was another issue. Are they being tried under the UCMJ or not? This has been litigated over the years. This may help explain some?

Guantanamo military commission - Wikipedia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 911
Some research produces complicated legal issues. Was Habeas Corpus permitted or not? Being detained on soil of a Foreign Sovereign was another issue. Are they being tried under the UCMJ or not? This has been litigated over the years. This may help explain some?

Guantanamo military commission - Wikipedia.
Were the litigants on the defensive side being tried as POW's? This gets real sticky and without seeing or reading the hearing transcripts, I cannot answer your questions.
 


Back
Top