9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may face death penalty as deal thrown out

The mastermind behind the truly devastating9/11 attacks on the US in 2001, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has had his plea deal thrown out, which means the death penalty could be back on the table.

A federal appeals court in Washington DC today threw out an agreement that would have allowed Mohammed to plead guilty following an effort to end a long-drawn-out legal saga around the prosecution of men held at Guantanamo Bay. The 2-1 appeals court decision upheld former Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin's decision to undo the plea deal that had been approved by military lawyers and senior Pentagon staff.

The deal carried life without parole sentences for Mohammed as well as two co-defendants, taking the death penalty off the table. Pakistani national Mohammed is accused of planning the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, as well as targeting other locations in the US in 2001.

READ MORE: Wild moment plane passenger 'grabs her breasts' as she furiously demands seat upgrade

READ MORE: Scientists drop cow carcass 1,600 metres into ocean and are floored by what appears

Austin said the decision to remove the death penalty from the deal could only be approved by the Secretary of Defence. But there were legal concerns over the original plea deal and whether it was actually legally binding and if Austin waited too long to move for its dismissal.

The court ultimately found Austin had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements as the promises made in the deal had not been fulfilled and also because the government had not alternatives. As the appeals court put the decision on hold, the defendants were not sentenced today as had previously been scheduled, reports Fox News.

Judges Patricia Milliett and Neomi Rao, who voted in favour, said the government "adequately explained that Secretary Austin delayed action to avoid an unlawful influence challenge, waiting to see what type of agreement, if any, would result from the negotiations and only then deciding whether intervention was necessary."

They also cited unlawful influence allegations against several government official, including the secretary of defence, Millett and Rao found Austin had been "reasonable" to withdraw from the agreements in order to avoid litigation.

"Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out," the judges said. "The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment."

The dissenting Judge Roberts L. Wilkins argued siding with the government would be an overreach. The Court’s holding is stunning," he said.

"Not only does the majority believe that Respondents [prosecutors who negotiated the plea deal] did not begin performance, but it holds that the government established a clear and indisputable right to a writ of mandamus or prohibition. It is impossible for me to conclude that the government has shown it is clearly and indisputably entitled to relief."