US government revokes plea deal for 3 men who orchestrated 9/11

On July 31, the Department of Defense that it had reached plea agreements with three of the men accused of plotting perhaps the worst day in American history, the hijackings of 9/11.

The administration quickly came out and essentially said that officials there didn't learn about the plea deal until the rest of the nation did.

"We had no role in that process," national security advisor Jake Sullivan said on Aug. 1. "The president had no role. The vice president had no role. I had no role. The White House had no role."

Citizens were FURIOUS.

Despite being responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin Attash, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi were given the dignity of reaching a plea agreement?

What would this mean for survivors and the families of deceased victims who are currently in a lawsuit against those supposedly responsible?

Why would America let these men call their own shots instead of finding them guilty of every crime in the book?

What leverage did these guys have to make a plea deal with? They KILLED almost 3,000 Americans!

Even holding these men responsible for 1% of the deaths they caused would put them away for multiple lifetimes.

For some reason, this plea deal had been negotiated by an independent party, instead of by the United States government.

The outrage from America's citizens and the White House alike seemed to have had an effect on the trial.

Two days after the plea deal was announced, America's Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reversed the decision and revoked the plea deal.

Now, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin Attash, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi are facing the possibility of the death penalty once again.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is now taking control of the case, stating that the "severity of the matter meant that the decision to accept a plea deal should rest with him alone."

"I have determined that, in light of the significance of the decision to enter into pre-trial agreements with the accused in the above-referenced case, responsibility for such a decision should rest with me as the superior convening authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2009," Austin explained. "Effective immediately, I hereby withdraw your authority in the above-referenced case to enter into a pre-trial agreement and reserve such authority to myself."

Do you think that Austin did the right thing by stepping in here and reversing the decision, or were you fine with the initial plea deal?

If you are interested in learning more about the details of this story, please feel free to click on the original source here.