In a dramatic turn of events, defense counsel for the alleged 9/11 conspirators at Guantanamo Bay has accused Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin of violating a previously-agreed-upon plea deal. The defense team argued that Austin's move not only violated military regulations but also exposed the system as "corrupt." The allegations were made during a pretrial hearing at Guantanamo on Wednesday.

The plea deal, which had been announced just two days prior, was swiftly revoked by Austin, drawing a fierce backlash from both sides of the political aisle and some groups representing 9/11 victims. The original press release from the Pentagon had stated that pretrial agreements had been reached with Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi after years of negotiation.

Defense counsel Walter Ruiz, representing al Hawsawi, expressed deep concern over the government official's unprecedented act of pulling back a valid agreement. He questioned the integrity of a system that appeared "obviously corrupt and rigged" in light of this development.

The defense teams, together with outside legal experts, argued that Austin's decision potentially violated the military's own regulations governing military commissions. Specifically, they referred to a regulation in the military's Manual for Military Commissions, stating that the convening authority can only withdraw a pretrial agreement before the accused begins "performance of promises" or if the accused fails to hold up their end of the deal.

One of the defense attorneys, Gary Sowards, representing Mohammad, argued that Austin did not have the authority under that regulation as Mohammad had already begun important, substantive performance. The defense teams called for a thorough examination of the issue of potential unlawful influence by Austin, which they believed could take a year or two to litigate.

During the hearing, prosecutor Clayton Trivett acknowledged that the government had yet to fully articulate its position and work through the issues raised in the motions. Defense attorney Sowards expressed surprise and frustration at this, emphasizing that the government should have had the opportunity to formulate an opinion or position on whether Austin's decision complied with existing regulations. He questioned if there was more to the story than met the eye and accused the government of wanting to "get their stories together."

While a senior defense official declined to comment on the claim that Austin violated military regulations, citing ongoing litigation, they maintained that the defense secretary had acted lawfully. The official further stated that Austin and the Pentagon were taken by surprise with the announcement of the pretrial agreement.

Austin stood by his decision to revoke the plea deal, emphasizing the need for military commission trials to provide justice to the families of the 9/11 victims. However, Sowards argued that by revoking the agreement, Austin was doing more harm than good to the families. The terms of the agreement included the detainees answering questions from 9/11 victim family members, and family members had already submitted their questions in good faith. The defense attorney asserted that Austin's actions threatened to bring chaos to the proceedings and were contrary to his intentions.

Legal experts also questioned Austin's belief that the 9/11 cases would proceed to trial and potentially reach sentencing. Citing examples of previous cases, they argued that the US government was unwilling to allow evidence of torture and abuse to be aired in court, making it highly unlikely for prosecutors to secure the death penalty.

As the legal battle unfolds, the fate of the alleged 9/11 conspirators and the pursuit of justice for the victims and their families remains uncertain. This story will continue to develop as litigation progresses.