PARIS: Salah Abdeslam, the main surviving suspect in a terrorist rampage that killed 130 people in attacks across Paris in 2015, on Wednesday told a court that he had pledged allegiance to Daesh but had never killed or wounded anyone.
Dressed in a crisp white shirt and with two armed police standing close behind him, Abdeslam told the court that the militant group had carried out the coordinated assaults to force an end to France’s military forays in Iraq and Syria.
Abdeslam, 32, a French national of Moroccan origin, said that he had pledged allegiance to Daesh 48 hours before the Paris attacks, the deadliest in postwar France.
Without explicitly stating what, if any role, he had played in the attacks, Abdeslam said only that he had harmed no one.
“I wanted to say today that I did not kill anyone and I did not hurt anyone. Not even a scratch,” Abdeslam said in a short address to the court before the judges began their questioning.
“It’s important for me to say this, because since the beginning of this case, people have not stopped slandering me.”
Investigators believe Abdeslam is the only surviving member of the extremist commando that carried out the synchronized gun and bomb attacks on six restaurants and bars, the Bataclan concert hall and national soccer stadium.
Investigators believe his explosive vest malfunctioned and that he fled the French capital in the hours after the attack. Among 20 defendants, he is the only one to be directly accused of murder, attempted murder and hostage taking.
He told the court he had been drawn to Daesh out of compassion for the Syrian people rather than any religious views, and said the West imposed its rules and values on others.
“For us Muslims, it’s humiliating,” he said.
Abdeslam had largely refused to cooperate with French investigators in the run-up to his trial, and appeared at times to goad the judges from the dock.
Asked about a trip he made to Greece where it is believed he met with other accomplices, he replied that while the judges might be used to fancier trips abroad, he was simply on holiday.
Abdeslam said he had never traveled to Syria and that he was not a danger to society. However, he acknowledged that he admired the willingness of Daesh militants to sacrifice themselves daily.
Daesh had targeted Paris to compel then-President Francois Hollande to end French military interventions against the group in Syria and Iraq, Abdeslam said, repeating an assertion made earlier in the trial
“It’s his fault that we are here today,” Abdeslam said of Hollande. “If they killed civilians, it was to make an impression.”
The attacks scarred the French national psyche and shaped a long-running national debate about immigration, the balance to strike between civil freedoms and security, and the place of Islam in a country that identifies as secular.
More than six years on, those same questions are prominent in the campaign ahead of April’s presidential election.
Arthur Denouveaux, who survived the Bataclan massacre, said he wanted to understand how a person reached the point where he was prepared to wear a suicide vest.
“How do you become radicalized so quickly while going unnoticed by everyone?” he said.
Paris attacks suspect says he personally killed no one, justifies civilian deaths
https://arab.news/zx4hd
Paris attacks suspect says he personally killed no one, justifies civilian deaths
- Abdeslam, 32, said that he had pledged allegiance to Daesh 48 hours before the Paris attacks
- Without explicitly stating what, if any role, he had played in the attacks, Abdeslam said only that he had harmed no one
Trump pivots to new 10 percent global tariff, new probes after Supreme Court setback
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump moved swiftly on Friday to replace tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court with a temporary 10 percent global import duty for 150 days while opening investigations under other laws that could allow him to re-impose the tariffs.
Trump told a briefing he was ordering new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, duties that would go on top of surviving tariffs. These would partly replace tariffs of 10 percent to 50 percent under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act that the top court declared illegal.
Trump said later on Truth Social that he had signed an order for the tariffs on all countries “which will be effective almost immediately.”
A spokesperson for the US Customs and Border Protection agency declined comment when asked when collections of the illegal IEEPA tariffs would halt at ports of entry.
Trump’s Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, said the new 10 percent duties and potentially enhanced tariffs under the Section 301 unfair practices statute and the Section 232 national security statute would result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.
“We will get back to the same tariff level for the countries. It will just be in a less direct and slightly more convoluted manner,” Bessent told Fox News, adding that the Supreme Court decision had reduced Trump’s negotiating leverage with trading partners.
The never-used Section 122 authority allows the president to impose duties of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days on any and all countries to address “large and serious” balance of payments issues. It does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits. After 150 days, Congress would need to approve their extension.
“We have alternatives, great alternatives,” Trump said. “Could be more money. We’ll take in more money and we’ll be a lot stronger for it,” Trump said of the alternative tools.
While the administration will likely face legal challenges, the Section 122 tariffs would lapse before any final ruling could be made, said Josh Lipsky, international economics chair at the Atlantic Council, a think tank in Washington.
Trump said his administration also was initiating several new country-specific investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 “to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.”
Trump’s shift to other statutes, including Section 122, while initiating new investigations under Section 301 had been widely anticipated, but these have often taken a year to complete.
The 10 percent tariffs only last five months, but Trump said that would allow his administration to complete investigations to enhance tariffs.
Asked if rates would ultimately end up being higher after more probes, Trump said: “Potentially higher. It depends. Whatever we want them to be.”
He said some countries “that have treated us really badly for years” could see higher tariffs, whereas for others, “it’s going to be very reasonable for them.”
The fate of dozens of trade deals to cut IEEPA-based duties and negotiations with major US trading partners remained unclear in the wake of the ruling, though Trump said he expected many of them to continue. He said deals that are abandoned “will be replaced with the other tariffs.”
“This is unlikely to affect reciprocal trade negotiations with our trading partners,” said Tim Brightbill, trade partner with the law firm Wiley Rein in Washington. “Most countries would prefer the certainty of a trade deal to the chaos of last year.”
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said details on new Section 301 investigations would be revealed in coming days, adding these are “incredibly legally durable.” Trump relied on Section 301 to impose broad tariffs on Chinese imports during his first term.
The Supreme Court’s ruling puts about $175 billion in tariff revenue collected over the past year subject to potential refunds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists.
Asked if he would refund the IEEPA duties, Trump said, “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years,” a response indicating that a quick, automatic refund process was unlikely.
Speaking in Dallas, Bessent told business leaders that since the Supreme Court did not provide any instructions on refunds, those were “in dispute,” adding: “My sense is that could be dragged out for weeks, months, years.”
Part of the reason why Trump opted for IEEPA to impose tariffs last year was because the 1977 sanctions statute allowed fast and broad action with almost no constraints. Until Friday, he had also used it as a cudgel to swiftly punish countries over non-trade disputes, such as Brazil’s prosecution of former president and Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro.
While Trump’s new investigations will prolong tariff uncertainty, they could inject more order into his tariff policy by forcing him to rely on trade laws that have well-understood procedures, research and public comment requirements, and longer timelines, said Janet Whittaker, senior counsel with Clifford Chance in Washington.
“The administration will need to follow these set processes, conduct the investigations, and so for businesses, that means more visibility into the process,” Whittaker said.
Robert Lighthizer, Trump’s trade chief during his first term, said on Fox News that he hoped Congress would revise decades-old trade laws to give Trump new tariff tools.
“I think there’s consensus in this Congress that we have to change the old system, and I hope that they will take this as an opportunity to do that,” Lighthizer said.
