Last of Four Confessions Obtained in Guantánamo from Alleged 9/11 Conspirators Ruled Inadmissible

On October 7, 2026, Judge Colonel Michael Schrama ruled Walid bin Attash’s statements to the FBI inadmissible at trial due to the agency’s failure to notify him that earlier statements extracted during CIA interrogations could not be used against him. This decision marks the last confession to be ruled inadmissible in the joint capital prosecution against four defendants (Mr. bin Attash, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Mustafa al Hawsawi, and Ammar al-Baluchi), all alleged 9/11 conspirators — the first of which occurred April 11, 2025 in Mr. al-Baluchi’s case and is currently being appealed by prosecutors. The case of a fifth alleged 9/11 conspirator, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, was severed from joint prosecution after a military medical board found him mentally unfit to stand trial in August 2023. 

The decision in Mr. bin Attash’s case also marks the fifth straight ruling in the capital prosecutions at Guantánamo Bay excluding the confessions taken by federal agents from “clean teams” due to the inadmissibility of prior torture-tainted confessions obtained by the CIA. The alleged confession of Abd-al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of participating in the USS Cole bombing, was the first to be ruled inadmissible on August 18, 2023; prosecutors unsuccessfully appealed that decision. Jury selection in Mr. al-Nashiri’s trial, which would be the first capital trial held during the Guantánamo Military Commissions, is set to begin October 26 despite his lawyers’ assertion that he is incompetent to stand trial. 

Based on unclassified passages of the decision, Judge Schrama found that the FBI had not sufficiently differentiated their interrogations across 10 days in 2007 and 2008 from the previous four years of interrogations in secret CIA prisons. This included FBI agents’ failure to provide a “cleansing statement” clearly explaining that nothing Mr. bin Attash had previously been coerced to tell the CIA could be used against him; however, pretrial hearing testimony demonstrated that such language was prohibited by lawyers in the George W. Bush administration, which developed the system of “clean teams” to try and obtain lawful confessions from former CIA prisoners who were often subject to “enhanced interrogation” (torture) techniques. Judge Schrama noted that FBI Agent Stephen Gaudin’s rapport-building approach was similar to the CIA who likewise provided food and beverages “to secure” Mr. Bin Attash’s “cooperation during interrogations,” along with similarities between security. The decision concluded that there was “environmental continuity” at Guantánamo that “effectively maintained the coercive psychological pressure established by the CIA.” 

Shortly before the decision in Mr. bin Attash’s case, Judge Schrama ruled Mr. al Hawsawi’s confession inadmissible on October 2, 2026. “To a person who has experienced years of operant conditioning, [referring to the CIA’s use of torture,] a simple assertion of a ‘blank slate’ by agents of the same government is wholly insufficient to sever the psychological tether of prior coercion,” he wrote. The confession made by Mr. Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times, was similarly found inadmissible by Judge Schrama in an August 28, 2026 decision. Prosecutors decided to forgo appeal, seemingly to preserve a June 2028 trial date. 

Mr. al-Baluchi’s confession was the first of the alleged 9/11 conspirators to be found inadmissible. Judge Colonel Matthew McCall ruled on April 11, 2025 that any confessions were the result of torture carried out by the CIA and consequently inadmissible. “Just as the CIA 
psychologists had planned, [Mr. al-Baluchi] learned that he was helpless to resist the torture, and that cooperation meant a lessening of abuse and an increase in rewards. … The goal of the program was to condition him through torture and other inhumane and coercive methods to become compliant during any government questioning. The program worked,” wrote Judge McCall. Defense attorneys argued during the January 2025 hearing that even after being transferred to Guantánamo Mr. al-Baluchi feared a lack of cooperation would make him subject to further torture, or even death. Prosecutors have appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Military Review, which has yet to rule. 

Accused of a key role in the USS Cole bombing, Mr. al-Nashiri’s alleged confession to federal agents was the first to be ruled inadmissible by a military court. In an August 18, 2023 ruling, Judge Colonel Lanna Acosta Jr. concluded that after years of physical and psychological by the CIA, “[a]ny resistance the Accused [Mr. al-Nashiri] might have been inclined to put up when asked to incriminate himself was intentionally and literally beaten out of him years before. … To refuse to cooperate was to face the prospect once again of experiencing drowning, the fear of summary execution, days of sleeplessness while shackled naked in a cell, confinement to small boxes, forced rectal feeding, or other physical and mental abuse. Through all that, the Accused implicated himself again and again.” Prosecutors unsuccessfully appealed this decision. 

On October 16, 2026, an army psychiatrist found Mr. al-Nashiri competent to stand trial after what defense attorneys allege was a hasty process. The same day, defense attorney Allison Miller asked the federal government to intervene and halt jury selection — set to begin October 26 — until competency could be more comprehensively evaluated; after a one-hour hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth denied the request, stating that the Military Commission must proceed first. The afternoon of October 16, Judge Fitzgerlad ordered testimony to be heard from three defense experts who disagree with the army psychiatrist’s report for Monday, October 19 — a timeline that defense attorney Ms. Miller argued is too soon as none of the three experts are at Guantánamo nor have been provided access to the classified 80-page report.