Conviction Upheld in Terror Plot

Judges Send Falls Church Man's Case Back for Resentencing

A federal appeals court yesterday upheld the conviction of a Falls Church man for plotting to kill President Bush and sent the case back to a lower court for resentencing -- a victory for prosecutors, who had argued that Ahmed Omar Abu Ali's 30-year prison term was too lenient.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said a judge erred in calculating Abu Ali's sentence by comparing his crimes to other terrorism cases. Federal jurors in Alexandria convicted Abu Ali in 2005 of joining an al-Qaeda conspiracy to mount a series of Sept. 11-style attacks and assassinations in the United States. Security officers from Saudi Arabia provided the bulk of the government's case, the first time a U.S. criminal trial relied so heavily on evidence gathered by a foreign intelligence service.

"The defendant gave no discernable thought to the personal loss and heartache that would have been suffered by untold hundreds or thousands of victims, spouses, children, parents and friends had his plans come to fruition. This is a fact that any sentencing system . . . would take into account," the decision said. It was written jointly by Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III, William B. Traxler Jr. and Diana Gribbon Motz. Motz dissented from the resentencing order but voted to uphold Abu Ali's conviction.

Although the ruling did not specify a prison term that U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee should impose, the majority judges indicated that it should be harsher. Prosecutors had sought life in prison. "We trust that any sentence imposed will reflect the full gravity of the situation before us," the decision said.

Joshua Dratel, an attorney for Abu Ali, said he will ask the full 4th Circuit to rehear the appeal. "This is one step along the way in the effort to get relief for Mr. Abu Ali," he said. "I'm not deterred by this."

Chuck Rosenberg, the U.S. attorney in Alexandria, said he was pleased by the decision and called it an important case. "Abu Ali was part of a dangerous al-Qaeda cell that sought to carry out attacks against -- and within -- the United States," he said.

The prosecution of Abu Ali was among a series of major terrorism cases tried in U.S. District Court in Alexandria after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Jurors convicted Abu Ali, then 24, on all nine counts against him, including conspiracy to assassinate the president.

The verdict culminated a public campaign by Abu Ali's family and supporters to bring him back from Saudi Arabia, where he had been jailed for 20 months. His parents said their son was tortured by Saudi security officers and that U.S. officials were complicitous. Abu Ali's lawyers echoed that, saying his admissions about being involved in the terror plot were coerced.

But a judge and then jury rejected that argument, and the 4th Circuit did so as well. The court also turned down Abu Ali's contention that the unusual circumstances of his trial, in which Saudi security officers testified via video from the kingdom, violated his constitutional rights to directly confront his accusers.

"Insistence on face-to-face confrontation may in some circumstances limit the ability of the United States to further its fundamental interest in preventing terrorist attacks," the court said.

David H. Laufman, who prosecuted the case and is now a Washington defense attorney, said the decision "underscores the ability of federal courts to adjudicate complex terrorism trials." U.S. officials have been debating for years whether to bring such cases before the criminal justice system or the military. A U.S. military court at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is now trying some of the masterminds of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The 4th Circuit judges indicated that they thought some terrorism cases should remain in the federal courts. "There should be no disagreement that the criminal justice system does retain an important place in the ongoing effort to deter and punish terrorist acts without the sacrifice of American constitutional norms and bedrock values," they wrote.

The court concluded that Abu Ali "received a fair trial, though not a perfect one" and that "the criminal justice system performed those functions which the Constitution envisioned for it.''