Military Judge Suppresses Final Confession in Guantanamo 9/11 Case
A military judge has excluded the final disputed confession in the Guantanamo Bay 9/11 case, ruling that Walid bin Attash's statements were inadmissible. The judge found that FBI agents did not adequately separate his later questioning from years of secret CIA detention and interrogation. This is the fifth ruling against prosecution attempts to use confessions from so-called clean teams, effectively rejecting the Bush administration's system for obtaining new statements from former CIA captives.
Judge Col. Michael Schrama issued a 63-page ruling dated Oct. 7, 2026, though the Pentagon initially withheld it and marked parts for possible security review and redaction. Walid bin Attash faces allegations that he scouted U.S. passenger planes in Asia and helped train two Sept. 11 hijackers.
The decision followed FBI questioning over ten days in 2007 and 2008, after roughly four years in secret CIA custody. The judge found agents never clearly told bin Attash his prior CIA statements could not be used, and that Bush-era lawyers barred such language and ordinary rights advisories. It marked the fifth such ruling by three military judges.
The ruling could further complicate efforts to prosecute the Guantanamo defendants, affecting victims’ families seeking resolution and detainees whose cases depend on contested statements. It may shape how military commissions handle evidence tainted by prior CIA custody, potentially limiting future prosecutions and reinforcing scrutiny of interrogation practices. It could also influence public confidence in whether national security trials can deliver lawful, credible outcomes.