Judge Throws Out Another Confession in Sept. 11 Case

Why This Matters

• The ruling further delays a trial that has already spent over a decade in pretrial proceedings.
• It calls into question whether the government can secure convictions using the interrogations that were conducted under the Bush administration's enhanced interrogation program.
• The decision may influence how future cases involving coerced or contested confessions are handled in military commissions.

Background

The Sept. 11 case involves five defendants accused of orchestrating the 2001 attacks. Their confessions, obtained in 2007 after they were subjected to sleep deprivation, waterboarding, and other techniques, have been a subject of legal battles. Previous rulings have also thrown out statements, and the case has been mired in litigation over the legality of the interrogation methods and the fairness of the military commission system.

Key Perspectives

Prosecutors: They have argued that the confessions are voluntary and reliable, and are essential to proving the defendants' roles in the plot. Defense lawyers: They contend the statements were extracted through torture and should be inadmissible under domestic and international law. Critics: Human rights groups and legal scholars say the repeated suppression rulings demonstrate that the military commission process is fundamentally flawed and cannot produce fair outcomes.

What to Watch

• Whether the government appeals the ruling, and how higher courts treat the evidentiary question.
• The scheduling of further pretrial hearings that could determine trial date.
• Potential plea negotiations, which have previously been proposed but collapsed.