Judge who axed 9/11 mastermind's confession blamed military’s ‘conservative tendencies’ for rising ‘extremism’

The judge who recently threw out a confession by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, previously argued that the U.S. military had a growing domestic extremism problem fueled in part by "conservative tendencies" reinforced by "extreme right-wing groups."

Lt. Col. Michael Schrama, an Air Force judge who specializes in military and environmental law, is presiding over the military commission in the 9/11 case. Last week, he tossed Mohammed’s 2007 confession on the grounds that it was not given voluntarily. The ruling could complicate what has already been a decades-long wait for the suspected plotter to stand trial. Just days before the 25th anniversary of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, Schrama rejected prosecutors’ request to begin the trial in January 2027 and instead set it for June 2028.

The decision, which was not initially made public, has drawn criticism, including from journalist and author Gerald Posner, who called it a "shameful prelude to the 9/11 anniversary." Scrutiny of Schrama’s record has also resurfaced a 2023 essay he wrote titled "Creating a Codified Legal Response to Domestic Extremism in the Ranks" for the national security and foreign policy publication "War on the Rocks."

In the essay, Schrama argued for creating a new provision in the military legal code to address what he referred to as the "rising population of military members engaging in extremist activities."

NEWLY UNCLASSIFIED PENTAGON IMAGES SHOW SUSPECTED DRUG BOATS AS OFFICIAL ISSUES DEADLY WARNING

Before his role on the military commission overseeing the 9/11 case, Schrama served as an Air Force trial judge at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia. He has also served as a staff judge advocate and defense counsel and was deployed in 2019 as a staff judge advocate to Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait. Between June 2017 and January 2019, he specialized in environmental law.

He wrote in his essay that "as an active-duty Air Force military judge, I have seen firsthand a rising population of military members engaging in extremist activities."

He said that "there is more than ample evidence that military members are a ripe population for extremist recruitment" and that the "rise of domestic extremism in the military ranks is a threat to national security."

To illustrate his argument, he pointed to a 2021 study by the Center for Strategic & International Studies that said military personnel were responsible for 17.6% of domestic terrorism plots and attacks.

CBC TELLS JOURNALISTS NOT TO CALL 9/11 ‘TERRORIST ATTACKS’ IN INTERNAL GUIDANCE

He also wrote that 12% of those charged with participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot had some form of military experience, including service members on active duty.

As to the reasons for this rising extremism, he argued that "military institutions tend to become more conservative and isolated from civilian society" and that "these conservative tendencies are constantly reinforced, and young military members can be easy prey for the extreme right-wing groups that relate through similar conservative ideology."

"Unfortunately, the United States Criminal Code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice do not currently provide the tools to deal with this crisis, as they do not treat domestic extremism as a specific criminal offense," he wrote, adding, "Codifying domestic extremism as a punitive article under the military code would provide a means for commanders to adequately address the rising tide of domestic extremism."

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

He also noted a 2019 case in which a Coast Guard officer pleaded guilty to gun and drug charges after prosecutors said he stashed weapons and planned to murder Democratic politicians, Supreme Court justices and TV journalists.

He wrote that "despite describing Hasson as a domestic terrorist, federal prosecutors chose these more minor charges due to the fact that no domestic terrorism statute currently exists."

NEW EVIDENCE IN LOCKERBIE PAN AM FLIGHT 103 BOMBING CASE PUSHES FEDERAL JUDGE TO POSTPONE TRIAL

Ronald Flesvig, a spokesperson for the Military Commissions Convening Authority, declined to comment on Schrama's ruling, saying it would be inappropriate to comment on the military judge's decision. He also declined to comment on Schrama's essay, saying it was published "not in his capacity as a judge for the military commissions."

Mohammed’s case, along with those of three co-defendants — Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin 'Atash, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi and Ali Abdul Aziz Ali — has been stuck in pretrial proceedings for years. Schrama became the fifth judge assigned to preside over the case in 2025.

In response to Schrama’s decision last week, White House senior advisor Stephen Mueller told Fox News, "Our judicial system is so badly broken it sides at every turn with predators, monsters and, in this case, a 9/11 mastermind."

Mueller also railed that the system "enables the persecution of innocent Americans who did nothing wrong, while protecting cartel killers and foreign terrorists."

"It’s a disgrace, it’s a travesty, it’s an outrage," he said.