Terrorism sentence to be cut
A federal appeals court ordered a reduction Thursday in the 15year, 8month prison sentence of an Oakland man who talked online of planning to kill thousands of people in the Bay Area, saying the evidence failed to show Amer Alhaggagi was seriously planning or promoting terrorism.
Alhaggagi, a Berkeley High graduate, pleaded guilty in July 2018 to attempting to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. Two years earlier, when he was 21, he wrote in an online chatroom of killing 10,000 Bay Area residents by bombing gay nightclubs in San Francisco, setting the Berkeley hills on fire and handing out poisoned cocaine on Halloween.
The FBI recorded his posting and had an undercover agent meet with Alhaggagi, who discussed bombmaking, offered to buy explosives and was taken to a locker where fake explosives were stored. He then cut off contact with the agent, saying later in court that he was put off by the sight of apparent explosives and had no intention of using them. Later, however, Alhaggagi opened social media and email accounts for purported ISIS members.
At Alhaggagi’s sentencing, his lawyers said he was a “troll” whose history and personality showed he shouldn’t be taken seriously. Forensic psychiatrist Marc Sageman, a former CIA operations officer, described Alhaggagi as an “immature young man who bragged online about being a dangerous terrorist” to impress others.
But U. S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco imposed a 188month sentence in February 2019, saying Alhaggagi had taken actions, such as opening the social media and email accounts, that were intended as “intimidation or coercion” of the U. S. government. A substantial though unspecified amount of the sentence was based on Breyer’s finding that the crimes involved terrorism.
On Thursday, a divided panel of the Ninth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected the terrorism finding and ordered Alhaggagi resentenced.
“One can open a social media account for a terrorist organization without knowing how that account will be used,” Judge Milan Smith said in the 21 ruling. “Generally, assisting a terrorist organization with social media does not necessarily demonstrate an intention that the accounts are to be used to retaliate against a government, and there is no evidence that Alhaggagi sought revenge” against the U. S. government, he wrote.
Despite Breyer’s findings, Smith said, prosecutors failed to present evidence “that Alhaggagi knew the accounts were to be used to intimidate or coerce government conduct.”
His opinion was joined by U. S. District Judge David Ezra of Hawaii, temporarily assigned to the appeals court. In dissent, Judge Andrew Hurwitz said there was ample evidence of terrorist intent: Alhaggagi’s initial discussion of mass killings, his possession of an ISIS bomb manual, and “a video in which he pledged to fight Americans on behalf of ISIS.”
The vote did not follow typical liberalconservative lines: Smith was appointed by President George W. Bush, Ezra by President Ronald Reagan, and Hurwitz by President Barack Obama. The government could ask the full appeals court for a new hearing before a larger panel, or appeal to the Supreme Court.
August Gugelmann, a lawyer for Alhaggagi, praised the ruling.
“Mr. Alhaggagi was young and foolish, and he said terrible things to the agents in this investigation,” Gugelmann said. “But he never intended to commit any act of violence, and he never intended to intimidate or coerce a government.”