Guantanamo
KSM Confession Tossed, Guantanamo’s Endless Trial Drags On
A military judge has excluded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s 2007 interrogation statements, citing torture. The 9/11 case, already 15 years in pretrial, faces another reset.

In a sparse courtroom at Guantanamo Bay, the judge overseeing the slow-motion prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ruled Friday that the self-described 9/11 mastermind’s 2007 confession cannot be used at trial. The decision, years in the making, underscores how the original sin of enhanced interrogation still poisons the case more than two decades after the attacks.
The Ruling and Its Reach
U.S. Air Force Col. Matthew McCall determined that statements Mohammed gave to the FBI in 2007 were tainted by the years of CIA black-site torture that preceded them. The ruling does not dismiss the charges—Mohammed and four co-defendants still face the death penalty for conspiracy, murder, and terrorism—but it strips prosecutors of what had been their most direct evidence of guilt. Defense attorneys had long argued the entire interrogation chain was poisoned; the judge agreed on the key 2007 session.
Fifteen Years of Pretrial Wrangling
The 9/11 military commission has become a case study in institutional failure. Arraignment occurred in 2008. The defendants were first charged in 2005. Multiple prosecutors have quit, judges have rotated, and procedural fights over classified evidence, torture, and the very legitimacy of the tribunal have consumed more than 50 hearing days without a single juror ever being seated. The government’s own estimates once put a trial start in 2021; that date has quietly vanished.
The road to trial has been long and winding, marked by repeated delays.
Fox News
Torture’s Long Shadow
The decision returns the case to a central disagreement that has divided the national security community since the first waterboarding reports emerged: whether evidence derived from cruel and degrading treatment can ever be sanitized for use in an American courtroom. Human rights groups called the ruling a long-overdue rebuke of post-9/11 excesses. Former CIA officials and some Republican lawmakers have countered that the techniques, however harsh, produced intelligence that prevented further attacks and that civilian courts would have faced the same contamination problems.
- this — the military commissions were created precisely to admit evidence that federal courts would exclude
- that — yet even the commissions, after 15 years, are now tossing core confessions because the taint cannot be cured
The Biden administration has made little visible progress accelerating the case. The Trump administration before it also failed to deliver the swift justice once promised. Each new president inherits the same grinding machinery at Guantanamo: a hybrid system that satisfies neither due-process advocates nor victims’ families demanding finality.
Mohammed, now in his late 50s and visibly aged in recent sketches, remains in Camp 5. His lawyers argue the case should be moved to federal court in New York or simply resolved through a plea that spares everyone another decade of hearings. Prosecutors insist the military commission is the only proper venue for an act of war. The judge’s ruling makes neither side’s path easier.
What readers ask
- Why was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confession excluded?
- The military judge ruled the 2007 statements were tainted by years of prior CIA torture at black sites, making them inadmissible.
- Does this mean the 9/11 case is over?
- No. The charges remain; prosecutors say they have other evidence, though the trial timeline is now even more uncertain.
- How long has the Guantanamo 9/11 trial been delayed?
- The case has been in pretrial proceedings for over 15 years since the defendants were first charged in 2005.