"A divided federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Friday tossed out an agreement that would have allowed 9/11 terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to plead guilty...."

"The 2-1 D.C. Circuit appeals court decision upheld then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s decision to undo the plea deal approved by military lawyers and senior Pentagon staff. The deal would have carried life without parole sentences for Mohammed and two co-defendants, potentially taking capital punishment off the table.... [L]egal concerns stemmed from whether the original plea deal was legally binding and whether Austin waited too long to get it dismissed. The court found Austin indisputably had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements because the promises made in the deal had not yet been fulfilled, and the government had no adequate alternative remedies...."

The NY Post reports.

"The idea that [Lloyd] Austin would even attempt to fob off a catastrophe like this with mumblings about his surprise amid ineffectual efforts to avert it is absurd."

Says the Editorial Board of the New York Post, in "Plea deal for KSM & other 9/11 terrorists is a final Biden ‘Screw you!’ to America."

"They’ve asked for these, and so I think it’s a good idea."

Said Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, in a stunning feat of moral reasoning, quoted in "Biden Administration Approves Ukraine’s Use of Anti-Personnel Mines" (NYT). The U.S. did not merely approve the use of land mines. We are supplying them. 

The Biden administration’s decision came despite widespread condemnation of mines by rights groups that cite their toll on civilians, which can stretch for years or decades after conflicts end as the locations of minefields are left unmarked or forgotten.... Russia has seeded mines throughout vast swaths of Ukraine since 2014 as front lines have swayed over forests, farm fields and villages. It has also set many so-called victim-activated booby traps, such as explosives rigged to detonate when a car door is opened, a category of weapon also prohibited in the mine ban treaty.

"Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III on Friday overruled the overseer of the war court at Guantánamo Bay and revoked a plea agreement reached earlier this week..."

"... with the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and two alleged accomplices.... In taking away the authority, Mr. Austin assumed direct oversight of the case and canceled the agreement, effectively reinstating it as a death-penalty case.... Mr. Austin’s decision brought relief to family members of victims who had expressed anger over the deal, but it also left uncertain the next steps of the prosecution over America’s deadliest terrorist attack.... The case had become mired in more than a decade of pretrial proceedings that focused on whether the detainees’ torture in secret C.I.A. prisons had contaminated the evidence against them.... Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the longtime Republican leader, called the agreement 'a revolting abdication of the government’s responsibility to defend America and provide justice.' Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas called the deal 'disgraceful and an insult to the victims of the attacks,' and introduced legislation intended to nullify it. But Senator Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, hailed the plea agreement as a 'small measure of justice and finality to the victims and their loved ones.'"

From "Defense Secretary Revokes Plea Deal for Accused Sept. 11 Plotters/Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III assumed direct oversight of the case and effectively put the death penalty back on the table" (NYT).

"Look at the heat I'm getting because I, I named a, uh, the, uh, Secretary of Defense — the black man."

BIDEN: "Look at the heat I'm getting because I, I named a, uh, the, uh, secretary of defense — the black man" 🥴 pic.twitter.com/PJYzDznpIV

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 18, 2024

ADDED: That video clip comes from Biden's interview yesterday with BET’s Ed Gordon. Details here (at The Hill).

"When people wonder how things might go wrong if AI controlled the world, this example clearly illustrates the point."

The sheer insanity of that actual response from Google’s AI is staggering! They will fix it to be less obvious in the future, but the bias will still be in there.

AI mirrors the mistakes of its creators.

When people wonder how things might go wrong if AI controlled the world,… https://t.co/Dr4BrxUPCm

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 5, 2024

Coincidentally, the NYT has this on its front page right now:

The article is full of graphics, apparently designed to boost our inadequate imagination. Here's one of the many vivid images that fly by as you scroll:

"At the Pentagon, staffers often share the meme of Homer Simpson backing into a hedge and disappearing from view to characterize their boss’s aversion to any limelight."

"But that reticence, [Lloyd] Austin’s backers say, reflects decades of cultural challenges for a Black man who has succeeded in the military by learning not to showcase too much of himself.... It has been more than a year since he appeared in the Pentagon briefing room to talk to reporters, and he usually avoids reporters who travel with him on his plane trips. Ditto for much of his staff; when traveling, he prefers to dine alone in his hotel room when he doesn’t have a scheduled engagement with a foreign counterpart. He does not like to schmooze or engage in lubricating political relationships.... He rarely bothers to defend himself to political critics.... 'We have now politicized a deeply personal and private issue in a deeply personal and private man,' Adm. Mike Mullen, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, said in an interview. 'We should move on.'..."

Writes Helene Cooper, in "Lloyd Austin Confronts the Perils of Being a Private Man in a Public Job/President Biden said his defense secretary made an error in judgment in not keeping the White House informed of his hospitalization. But keeping a low profile has long defined the Pentagon chief" (WaPo).

"The Defense Department inspector general said Thursday it will investigate the mishandling of Lloyd Austin’s recent hospitalization..."

"... which the Pentagon chief and others close to him kept secret for days in an apparent breach of protocol after he developed serious complications from prostate cancer surgery.... The independent review will be conducted in addition to a 30-day assessment directed by Austin’s office and a parallel review ordered by the White House...."

WaPo reports.

AND: Why isn't Austin already gone? Is the White House afraid of criticism for letting him go or is it the problem of who will replace him? Here's a Politico discussion of who could be the next Secretary of Defense.

"The bargain a staffer strikes has always been this: You get to influence the decisions of the most powerful government in the history of the world."

"In exchange for that influence, you agree to back the final decision even if it goes against your advice. If confronted with a decision that crosses one’s ethical, moral, social, political lines, the choice is clear: Shut up and support it, or resign."

Said Paul Begala, quoted in "Bosses in the Biden admin are pressed over young staffers’ anonymous letters/Protest letters, like those over Israel, were rare in past administrations. White House veterans can barely contain their disdain over how times have changed" (Politico).

In the Trump presidency, unauthorized leaks became a form of political currency, with anonymous officials writing op-eds, and wild bits of drama routinely finding their way into the news. Inside the current White House, there’s a feeling that the culture has now irrevocably changed....

So... it didn't work to change the culture temporarily, to deal with Trump, that horribly abnormal President. The old culture didn't just pop back into place when Trump was gone. You have to take care of a culture and maintain its values in good times and bad.

RELATED: "Impeachment frenzy hits Capitol Hill" (WaPo)(noting "impeachment projects centering on President Biden, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin"). 

Lloyd Austin only just got out of intensive care yesterday.

I'm surprised to read (in The Washington Post).

Austin, 70, remains under doctors’ supervision at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland. He was taken there by ambulance Jan. 1, while in “severe pain” with undisclosed complications from a Dec. 22 medical procedure that included an overnight stay, administration officials said.

He's still in the hospital, and we still don't know what the original procedure was. Something that includes an overnight stay, so, I'm thinking... not a colonoscopy. Why would they withhold this information, with so much attention aimed at this case? Perhaps they are bolstering the argument that it's something so private that it justified the initial failure to disclose? I can think of some things like that, but I won't put them in writing. Too private!

Someone? Why would it be anyone but Lloyd Austin himself?

I'm trying to read "‘He’s a cipher’: How Austin’s need for privacy just backfired/Pressure is growing on Capitol Hill and within the administration for someone to lose their job" (Politico).

Austin’s failure to inform his most senior advisers, congressional leaders and even President Joe Biden of his hospitalization last week due to complications from a medical procedure has erupted into a controversy that’s left senior White House and Pentagon officials infuriated and befuddled. Some Republicans quickly called for investigations or even for Austin to be disciplined or fired....

Even for Austin...

Some... Republicans....

We're talking about the defense of the United States!

Austin’s job appears safe — at least for the moment, but pressure is growing within the administration and on Capitol Hill for someone to lose their job.....

Why protect Austin?

"Lloyd Austin Owes Americans an Explanation/The secretary of defense has taken 'full responsibility' for failing to inform the public of his hospitalization, but that’s not enough."

Writes Tom Nichols in The Atlantic.

[W]hat possible reason could there be for Austin’s failing to inform President Joe Biden and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan...?... If Austin’s illness was kept under wraps by his aides to shield him from criticism or scrutiny, that’s evidence of a dysfunctional staff environment, in which actions to protect the boss’s equities overtake both necessary procedures and plain good sense. The fact that Austin’s hospitalization, according to Politico, was “a closely guarded secret, kept from even senior Pentagon officials and congressional leaders,” suggests that this strange episode was the result of more than just an oversight.... 

"The nation’s top national security officials assembled at the Pentagon early on April 24 for a secret meeting to plan the final withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan...."

"... Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with top White House and intelligence officials. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken joined by video conference. After four hours, two things were clear. First, Pentagon officials said they could pull out the remaining 3,500 American troops, almost all deployed at Bagram Air Base, by July 4.... Second, State Department officials said they would keep the American Embassy open, with more than 1,400 remaining Americans protected by 650 Marines and soldiers. An intelligence assessment presented at the meeting estimated that Afghan forces could hold off the Taliban for one to two years. There was brief talk of an emergency evacuation plan — helicopters would ferry Americans to the civilian airport in Kabul, the capital — but no one raised, let alone imagined, what the United States would do if the Taliban gained control of access to that airport, the only safe way in and out of the country once Bagram closed. The plan was a good one, the group concluded.... 'It’s a rational drawdown with our allies,' [Biden] insisted [on July 2d], 'so there’s nothing unusual about it.' But as the questions persisted, on Afghanistan rather than the economy, he grew visibly annoyed.... 'I want to talk about happy things, man.'"

From "Miscue After Miscue, U.S. Exit Plan Unravels/President Biden promised an orderly withdrawal. That pledge, compounded by missed signals and miscalculations, proved impossible" (NYT).

ADDED: If you go into the comments over there at the NYT and you put them in order of "most liked," you'll see an unbroken chain of comments supporting Joe Biden: "It seems to me that the media is being less than fair to Joe Biden over this," "Has it really gone wrong?," "Did the Trump Surrender Agreement with the Taliban provide for evacuation? If it did, what did it say? If it didn’t, why not?," "Frankly I’m dismayed that the media is now declaring this a disaster," "Thanks President Biden for making this brave decision albeit flawed execution. When we end this if there are no US troop live lost and Americans evacuated with as much of our allies. It will be remembered as a very good decision and no one will care about execution like Vietnam withdrawal."

"Lloyd Austin retired from military service more than four years ago. The law states that an officer must have left the service at least seven years..."

"... before becoming secretary of defense. But I hope that Congress will grant a waiver to Secretary-designate Austin, just as Congress did for Secretary Jim Mattis.... I respect and believe in the importance of civilian control of our military and in the importance of a strong civil-military working relationship at DoD—as does Austin. We need empowered civilians working with military leaders to shape DoD’s policies and ensure that our defense policies are accountable to the American people."

From "Why I Chose Lloyd Austin as Secretary of Defense/We need a leader who is tested, and matched to the challenges we face in this moment" by Joe Biden (in The Atlantic).

For those who opposed the waiver for Mattis, it is easy — almost mandatory — to oppose the waiver for Austin. Senator Elizabeth Warren said yesterday: "I have great respect for Gen. Austin. His career has been exemplary, and I look forward to meeting him and talking to him more, but I opposed a waiver for Gen. [James] Mattis, and I will oppose a waiver for Gen. Austin."

It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin. It will seem as though reciprocity is required and to deny it will open them up to accusations of racism. (Austin is African American.) Their only defense would entail disparaging Trump — he somehow needed special help and lacked options. 

Here's a Wall Street Journal article that I was able to read without a subscription, "Biden’s Pick for Defense Chief Rekindles a Civilian-Military Debate/Gen. Austin will need a congressional waiver, as did Gen. Mattis, posing a test for Democrats." Excerpt:

Some defense experts questioned why Gen. Austin should receive a waiver, given that his expertise is the Middle East and the incoming administration says that China is emerging as the main threat to U.S. interests. Mr. Biden didn’t mention China in his Atlantic article defending his decision to pick Gen. Austin.

That is, what is the special reason that Austin is needed? Is it race? If so, what about gender? I see: "Michèle Flournoy Again Finds Her Shot at the Top Pentagon Job Elusive/President-elect Joe Biden’s decision to instead nominate retired Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III enraged many of the women Ms. Flournoy elevated from the trenches of national security policy" (NYT):

Like former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Biden's choice for Secretary of Defense, Lloyd J. Austin III, will require Congress to waive a law that excludes former military officers from serving in that position until they've been retired for 7 years.

"'The law was put in place to make sure there was a separation between the civil and military authority,' said Charles Allen, a retired Army colonel and scholar on civil-military relations at the Army War College.... [F]our years ago, Mattis was widely viewed as a necessary exception due to the concern that Trump and his team were inexperienced and the revered retired Marine would provide some stability. But the circumstances are different now. 'What I found distressing about Austin,' [said Peter Feaver, a former National Security Council official in the George W. Bush Administration and scholar on civil-military relations at Duke University], 'is that everybody understood it was problematic to issue the waiver for Mattis. But it made sense to do so given the extraordinary situation. We are supposed to be in a return to normalcy... The really unusual thing was how prominent senior retired military were in the landing teams... That is a very political post and almost always is done by civilian political people.'... If this trajectory continues it could have a detrimental effect on the military's ethical standing, said Marybeth Ulrich, a retired Air Force colonel who specializes in civil-military relations. 'You don't want people lobbying for these jobs — still on active duty or even retired,' she said. Or for the presidential candidates or their campaigns signaling to the senior officer ranks that 'you give me your support now, I give you a job.'"

From "Biden's reliance on retired military brass sets off alarm bells/'I winced a little,' said a former GOP national security official on the number of retired senior officers already working on Biden’s transition" (Politico).