Court Hears Appeal In Bush Murder Plot

An American Muslim convicted of joining al Qaeda and plotting to assassinate President Bush was denied his constitutional right to confront his accusers, his lawyer told a federal appeals court Thursday.

The government also failed to produce evidence to support a confession given by Ahmed Omar Abu Ali after he was tortured by Saudi security officers, attorney Joshua Draytel told the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Assistant U.S. Attorney David H. Laufman countered that Abu Ali's trial in November 2005 was fair and that there was no doubt about the validity of his written and videotaped confessions.

"The sheer detail of these confessions is astonishing," Laufman told a three-judge panel, which later conducted a closed session focusing on classified information.

The court likely will issue its ruling in several weeks.

Abu Ali, a U.S. citizen born to a Jordanian father and raised in Falls Church, Va., is serving 30 years for conspiracy to assassinate the president, conspiracy to hijack aircraft and providing support to al Qaeda.

Prosecutors said Abu Ali traveled to Saudi Arabia and joined al Qaeda out of hatred for the United States. The Saudis arrested Abu Ali in June 2003 as he was taking final exams at the Islamic University of Medina.

Abu Ali gave the Saudis a statement in which he said that he joined al Qaeda and discussed with some senior members Bush's assassination and other terror plots. The jury in Abu Ali's trial saw his videotaped confession.

Draytel argued that his client's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers "took a ferocious beating" because the Saudis testified from Riyadh while Abu Ali was in a courtroom in Alexandria, Va. He said Abu Ali should have been taken to Saudi Arabia since the Saudi government would not allow its agents to come to the U.S.

Laufman said, however, that security concerns precluded taking Abu Ali to Saudi Arabia. He also said the Sixth Amendment "does not guarantee a defendant a face-to-face encounter" with his accuser.

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III pressed Draytel on the torture issue, asking how he could argue such coercion when the videotape "showed the defendant rocking back and forth and smiling."

Draytel referred the court to his written briefs, saying he wanted to spend his limited oral argument time on the Sixth Amendment issue and his claim that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the confession. He said such evidence is required "to give the trier of fact a comfort level that the statements of the defendant are reliable."

Wilkinson seemed skeptical. He told Draytel that only "bare bones" confessions are typically suppressed because of a lack of corroborating evidence.

"These are among the most detailed confessions I've seen," the judge said.

On another issue, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz questioned whether the oath taken by Saudi witnesses could be relied upon since U.S. authorities had no way to prosecute them for perjury.

"I'm not sure I've ever seen a witness take an oath more seriously than these Saudi security officers did," Laufman said.

On cross-appeal, the government is challenging Abu Ali's 30-year sentence as too lenient. He faced a maximum of life in prison, but U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee said 30 years was sufficient considering the 20-year term given to John Walker Lindh, who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan in November 2001 during the U.S.-led effort to topple the Taliban.

Wilkinson and Motz were joined on the panel by Judge Robert Traxler.