The single terrorist survivor of the horrible 2015 ISIS attack in Paris that killed 130 people refused to answer any questions when he appeared in court today in Brussels, Belgium.
The 28-year-old mass murderer Salah Abdeslam even refused to confirm his own identity. During the proceedings, he made clear that his silence will continue throughout.
Abdeslam wore a white jacket and appeared with his thick beard in court. When one of the judges asked him “are you Salah Abdeslam,” the terrorist refused to respond. Instead of answering, he simply stared at the floor. This attitude is undoubtedly the result of his hatred for everything not radically Islamic. Extremists like Abdeslam refuses to accept the authority of secular institutions. So no, he’s not going to answer this question — or any other question for that matter. He considers himself well above the judgments of “unbelievers.”
Although the trial is important, this particular trial in Belgium isn’t about the Paris terror attack, but about his shoot-out with police in March 2016 when they came to arrest him. He’s accused of possession of (banned) weapons and of attempted murder in a terrorist context.
Belgian and French prosecutors and intelligence officers were hoping that Abdeslam would give them some insight into the inner workings of ISIS and similar terror organizations. That is, clearly, not going to happen.
And that brings us to a weakness inherent in our judicial system in Europe. It’s relatively simple for people like Abdeslam to keep their mouth shut. There aren’t many ways to force them to talk. Common criminals are often willing to play along in order to get a reduced sentence. Not so with extremists. They’re more than willing to “suffer” for their sick ideology.
It goes to show that there’s certainly something to say for a) a place like Guantanamo Bay and b) enhanced interrogation techniques. Sadly, saying that out loud in politically correct Europe is nothing more or less than blasphemy.