U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin revoked a plea agreement reached earlier this week with three accused plotters of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, including the alleged mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The previous agreements exchanged guilty pleas from the men for sentences of, at most, life in prison.

Austin relieved the senior official in charge of military commissions, Brig. Gen. Susan Escallier, from her oversight of the case, saying in an order released Friday evening, “in light of the significance of the decision … responsibility for such a decision should rest with me.” The cancellation of the agreement effectively makes it a capital case again.

The previous plea agreements with the Pentagon, announced Wednesday, had been a partial resolution for a case that had dragged on for almost 20 years, and was unlikely ever to go to trial.

Reaction to the plea deals had been mixed; While some victim family members saw them as closure, many family members of the nearly 3,000 people who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, want the 9/11 defendants put to death.

Brett Eagleson, who was 15 when his father died in the World Trade Center collapse, sent NPR a statement issued by a group called 9/11 Justice that said it was “deeply troubled by these plea deals,” calling them the product of “closed-door agreements where crucial information is hidden without giving the families of the victims the chance to learn the full truth.”

Republican lawmakers expressed dismay at the agreements: among them, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who introduced legislation intended to nullify it.

“Giving a plea deal to the terrorist masterminds behind 9/11 is disgraceful and an insult to the victims of the attack,” he said.

Austin’s decision throws the case back into limbo.

This is a developing story.

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
elements: severity and purpose.
“620
police brutality.”
619
These elements serve to distinguish true torture from “mere
The first inquiry is severity. The D.C. Circuit explained, “The critical issue is
“621
the degree of pain and suffering that the alleged torturer intended to, and actually did, inflict upon
the victim. The more intense, lasting, or heinous the agony, the more likely it is to be torture.”
The court gave “sustained systematic beating” and “tying up or hanging in positions that cause
extreme pain” as examples of “extreme, deliberate and unusually cruel practices” that meet the
severity requirement of torture. 622 It is permissible to infer the intent to cause pain from the facts
of the abuse. 623 Courts have characterized treatment milder than that at issue here as torture.
624
(note) [hereinafter TVPA]. TVPA, like § 2340, draws its definition from CAT. See Price, 294
F.3d at 92.
619
Price, 294 F.3d at 92; Warmbier v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 356 F. Supp.
3d 30, 46 (D.D.C. 2018) (“To establish torture, the plaintiffs must show that the conduct was
sufficiently severe and purposeful.”).
620
Price, 294 F.3d at 93.
621 Id.
622 Id. at 92-93 (quoting S. Exec. Rep. No. 101-30, at 14 (1990)); see also Fritz v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, 320 F. Supp. 3d 48, 80 (D.D.C. 2018) (“And, on the other extreme, we know,
for example, that ‘sustained systematic beating… and tying up or hanging in positions that cause
extreme pain’ clearly cross the line.” (quoting Price, 294 F.3d at 93)).
623
Fritz, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 82.
624 See, e.g., Allan v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49541 (D.D.C. Mar. 25,
2019) (describing punches, kicks, sexually assaults, slaps, stress positions, refusal of access to food
and water, denial lavatories, mock executions, threats, and imprisonment in apartments, garages,
and basement prisons as torture).
Filed with TJ
15 May 2019
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Appellate Exhibit 628 (AAA)
Page 187 of 1205

Stay informed with free updates

Simply sign up to the US interest rates myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.

A sharper than expected fall in US jobs growth in July has raised concerns that the Federal Reserve is moving too slowly to lower borrowing costs for Americans, risking the very recession it has been trying to avoid.

The employment report released on Friday showed companies added 114,000 positions across the world’s largest economy last month, significantly lower than the 215,000 average gain over the past 12 months.

The unemployment rate rose 0.2 percentage points to 4.3 per cent, triggering the Sahm Rule, which links the start of a recession to when the three-month moving average of the jobless rate rises at least half a percentage point above its low over the past 12 months.

The data comes two days after the US central bank opted against lowering its benchmark interest rate, which has remained at a 23-year high of 5.25 per cent to 5.5 per cent since last July.

In justifying the decision, chair Jay Powell said the Federal Open Market Committee wanted to see more evidence that inflation is headed back to its 2 per cent target before following through with any monetary policy pivot. Importantly, he stressed he “would not like to see material further cooling in the labour market”.

Powell made clear a rate reduction is on the table at the next meeting in September — and the July jobs report all but confirms the FOMC will deliver one — but economists say the Fed will be forced to move more aggressively than would have been the case had it started cutting rates earlier.

“They made a mistake. They should have been cutting rates months ago,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s. “It feels like a quarter-point cut in September isn’t going to be enough. It’s got to be a half-point with a clear signal that they are going to be much more aggressive in normalising rates than they have been indicating.”

Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY Parthenon, agreed the July meeting was a “missed opportunity” for the Fed, saying it would have been more “optimal” had the central bank delivered its first rate cut in June.

“If you had a forward-looking perspective, you were seeing that the totality of the data was pointing towards a slowing in economic activity, a slowing in labour market momentum and ongoing disinflation, which is really what the Fed has been after.”

Economists are not the only ones to accuse the central bank of falling behind the curve. On Friday, progressive Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren — who has been a staunch critic of Powell and prior to this week’s decision urged him to cut rates — called on the chair to take imminent action.

“He’s been warned over and over again that waiting too long risks driving the economy into a ditch. The jobs data is flashing red,” she wrote on X. “Powell needs to cancel his summer vacation and cut rates now — not wait six weeks.”

In the wake of the jobs report, traders in federal funds futures markets boosted bets that the central bank would lower its policy rate more than a full percentage point this year, implying as many as two half-point cuts given there are only three meetings left in 2024. Prior to Friday’s release, market participants had priced in a total of 0.75 percentage points of cuts for the year.

Wall Street banks on Friday rapidly revised their outlooks, with JPMorgan and Citigroup officially calling for two half-point reductions in September and November followed by quarter-point cuts at every meeting thereafter until the policy rate reached a “neutral” level that no longer constrained growth.

Austan Goolsbee, president of the Chicago Fed, shared some of the concern about the labour market in an interview with Bloomberg TV on Friday, but urged against a rushed response.

“We’d never want to overreact to any one months’ numbers,” he said.

Fed officials and economists have taken some comfort in the fact that the world’s largest economy looks far from collapsing. Powell on Wednesday said the chances of a so-called “hard landing” — whereby getting inflation back to target prompts a recession — still remained low.

“You don’t see any reason to think that this economy is either overheating or sharply weakening, that’s just not in the data right now,” he said.

In the past quarter, the US economy grew nearly 3 per cent. Moreover, consumers are still spending and employers are still hiring, even if both are happening at a slower pace.

“The Fed is not easing because it sees weakness that it wants to counteract,” said Michael Gapen, head of US economics at Bank of America, who previously worked at the Fed.

But in a warning shot, he added: “If they don’t cut rates, they do risk creating a recession that they don’t want.”