Judge Excluded Final Confessions in Sept. 11 Case
The ruling bars statements made by defendant Walid bin Attash after the court found them to be involuntary.
Updated on Oct. 8, 2026 in Terrorism
Live Poll
Should courts exclude confessions obtained in environments where prior coercion occurred?
A military judge has suppressed the last disputed confessions of Walid bin Attash in the long-running Sept. 11 terrorism case. This decision means the confessions of all four remaining defendants in the case have now been barred from evidence.
Why it matters
The ruling highlights the legal challenges in prosecuting detainees who were previously held at C.I.A. black sites. The judge determined that interrogations by federal agents continued the coercive pressure established by prior C.I.A. methods.
A judge issued a 63-page ruling suppressing statements made by Walid bin Attash to federal agents in 2007 and 2008. The court found that these interrogations were involuntary, marking the fifth time a judge has rejected such clean team confessions.
The players
Walid bin Attash
He is one of the defendants in the Sept. 11 terrorism case who was captured in Pakistan in 2003.
Michael Schrama
He is the military judge presiding over the Sept. 11 terrorism case.
Ramzi bin al-Shibh
He was previously a defendant in the Sept. 11 case before being dropped from the proceedings.
The details
Federal agents had interrogated Walid bin Attash during three sessions held in 2007 and 2008 at a facility previously used as a C.I.A. black site. The judge ruled the evidence inadmissible because agents failed to inform the prisoner that his previous statements to the C.I.A. could not be used against him.
Timeline
The U.S.S. Cole bombing occurred in 2000.
The Sept. 11, 2001, hijacking attacks killed nearly 3,000 people.
Walid bin Attash was captured in Pakistan in 2003.
Defendants were transferred to Guantánamo in 2006.
Prosecutors intend to pursue a trial date of June 5, 2028.
Legal Context
The exclusion of these confessions marks a significant development in the broader history of post-9/11 military commissions. This ruling underscores the enduring difficulties of litigating cases involving evidence gathered at C.I.A. black sites.
The suppressed evidence limits the prosecution's available materials for the upcoming trial regarding the Sept. 11 attacks. This development directly impacts the progress of the case, which has been delayed for years, and remains a matter of national interest for the American public.
The takeaway
The suppression of these confessions highlights the significant hurdles that military commissions face when using statements obtained after C.I.A. interrogations. The ruling serves as a reminder of the strict evidentiary standards required to ensure the validity of testimonies in high-profile terror trials.
What happens next
Prosecutors are currently pursuing a scheduled trial start date of June 5, 2028.
Further reading
Learn more about the ongoing legal proceedings by visiting our Terrorism section.
Live Poll
Should courts exclude confessions obtained in environments where prior coercion occurred?
