this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
854 points (98.6% liked)
World News
1124 readers
498 users here now
Rules:
- Be a decent person
- No spam
- Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.
Other communities of interest:
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I am not talking about the method in which the questioning took place or how lit it was. If the problem was "Hasan's room was too dim, there were not enough witnesses, and not recorded properly" that's a different though serious issue. We're not going to remove questioning altogether because of that. Again, we're discussing whether him being questioned is reasonable or expected, not the method in which it happened. Of course these things should be monitored by multiple people or at least logged.
Same goes with your other point. If you have an issue with who should decide and who should enforce, that's not a Hasan problem. If we're shitting on the trump administration, then let me get the turd clipper, because I'm all for it. But there was nothing outrageous about Hasan being questioned.
Again, you're narrowing the discussion by focusing on this specific administration, my reasoning is general and should be referred to any presidency or state. These kind of authoritative behaviour can be enacted both by the left and the right, we should always be against them no matter what.
Questioning someone coming to your country makes no sense, if he has ill intentions he'll conceal them to enact on them once inside the country. The reasoning behind the questions you face entering a state is that, if you tell a lie, the state can arrest you for having commited a felony. What's the advantage in that if you have made yourself explode in a supermarket? You're gonna put bit and pieces of the terrorist in a cage for 40 years?