Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Three Co-Defendants Charged in 9/11 Case
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three co-defendants have been charged in connection with the September 11 attacks; the case is at the charging stage and the defendants are presumed innocent.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 7, 2026, 6:42 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 7, 2026, 6:42 p.m. ETFirst report
Prosecutors Drop Appeal Over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confession to Protect 2028 Trial
Federal prosecutors have dropped an appeal related to a confession by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, according to a report by WFMD. The move is intended to protect the 2028 trial of Mohammed and three other defendants, who are charged in connection with the September 11 attacks.
The defendants are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, Mustafa al-Hawsawi, and Ammar al-Baluchi, as reported by WFMD. The case is at the charging stage and has not been decided; the defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
The appeal's withdrawal comes as prosecutors seek to ensure the trial proceeds as scheduled. Further details about the confession and the appeal were not provided in the report.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 17 Sept 2026, 22:54current
First published.
- Version 17 Sept 2026, 22:42current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.