• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Secret service questions teen without parents being present

This isn't the only travesty to happen to the civil rights and civil liberties of American citizens since 9/11.

To be perfectly fair, the kid did say that Obama should "watch out for suicide bombers." The Secret Service should at least follow up anything that is remotely a threat to the President. If they didn't, and Obama did get killed, we'd be berating them for not doing their job.

(and I think that's true no matter what party the President belongs to.)
 
To be perfectly fair, the kid did say that Obama should "watch out for suicide bombers." The Secret Service should at least follow up anything that is remotely a threat to the President. If they didn't, and Obama did get killed, we'd be berating them for not doing their job.

(and I think that's true no matter what party the President belongs to.)

you dont question my child without me being there.
period

and its interesting that both posts so far mention a political affiliation having something to do with it
 
you dont question my child without me being there.
period

and its interesting that both posts so far mention a political affiliation having something to do with it

What if they're being questioned about you?
 
What if they're being questioned about you?

Then they should have a guardian ad litem to consult the child on their civil rights and civil liberties and to protect the interests of the child.
 
If the school told the agent that the mother wasn't coming and some one from the school was there with the child, then I really do not see the problem. If the mother were to be pissed with some one it should be the school then.
 
I guess it depends on the approach.

"hey kid, did you post this status on facebook?"
"that? yeah...I just thought he was at risk, ya know?"
"Right. And you're attending (whatever school) and the records say you're 13?"
"Yes sir".
"Alright, thanks for your concern for Obama, have a nice day"

and

"tell us what you know, maggot scum!!! f*cking talk!!!"

Completely different.
 
FWIW, I thought this entire episode was ridiculously ****ed up.

But at least it shows the secret service is taking threats on the President's life very seriously.
 
and its interesting that both posts so far mention a political affiliation having something to do with it

I was just playing "cover my ass" before someone stormed in and accused me of being okay with threats to a Republican President. I've seen it happen too many times on these boards...
 
Mommy and Daddy probably never knew what the kid was saying on Facebook, maybe we should be upset with the parents for allowing their child to roam freely on the internet and say whatever he want's.

IIRC Facebook does not have parental controls built into the system and if he wants to be a man and say big things then he should be able to explain himself to the adults.

This is nothing more than another parenting fail IMO.

Besides it kind of shows that folks are watching/listening to the rhetoric/potential threats etc, good for us.

BTW 13 is about the right age for Guantanamo if I understand things correctly.
 
I guess it depends on the approach.

"hey kid, did you post this status on facebook?"
"that? yeah...I just thought he was at risk, ya know?"
"Right. And you're attending (whatever school) and the records say you're 13?"
"Yes sir".
"Alright, thanks for your concern for Obama, have a nice day"

and

"tell us what you know, maggot scum!!! f*cking talk!!!"

Completely different.

Exactly. The word "interrogated" takes on such negative connotations. I could walk up to someone and ask if the bus stops at a particular corner, and technically you could say I "interrogated" them.

Should they have called the parents? Probably. But it's not necessarily something to get all in a lather about.
 
To be perfectly fair, the kid did say that Obama should "watch out for suicide bombers." The Secret Service should at least follow up anything that is remotely a threat to the President. If they didn't, and Obama did get killed, we'd be berating them for not doing their job.

(and I think that's true no matter what party the President belongs to.)

The problem isn't that the Secret Service investigated a potential threat. I TOTALLY understand and support that.

What I am opposed to is the Secret Service questioning a minor without a guardian to represent his interests. That should not be happening.
 
I guess it depends on the approach.

"hey kid, did you post this status on facebook?"
"that? yeah...I just thought he was at risk, ya know?"
"Right. And you're attending (whatever school) and the records say you're 13?"
"Yes sir".
"Alright, thanks for your concern for Obama, have a nice day"

and

"tell us what you know, maggot scum!!! f*cking talk!!!"

Completely different.

I don't think it matters. Parents are incredibly protective of their children. And considering how harsh our criminal system is, I understand why a parent would be angry that their child was questioned without their presence.

They should have either waited for a parent or issued a guardian ad litem to be present with the child. It doesn't matter if it was a friendly questioning or a harsh interrogation. They should do it at the very least to cover their asses against lawsuits like this agent opened up to them.
 
I don't think it matters. Parents are incredibly protective of their children. And considering how harsh our criminal system is, I understand why a parent would be angry that their child was questioned without their presence.

They should have either waited for a parent or issued a guardian ad litem to be present with the child. It doesn't matter if it was a friendly questioning or a harsh interrogation. They should do it at the very least to cover their asses against lawsuits like this agent opened up to them.

I would say that many parents are incredibly protective, and another significant handful act as if a child is a goldfish who requires little attention or care.
 
I would say that many parents are incredibly protective, and another significant handful act as if a child is a goldfish who requires little attention or care.

Either way, it really doesn't matter. Children are considered legally minors because they don't fully understand their rights and liberties nor their civic responsibilities. Regardless of what kind of parenting they get they should not be questioned by a law enforcement authority without a guardian present to protect the interests of the child.
 
Either way, it really doesn't matter. Children are considered legally minors because they don't fully understand their rights and liberties nor their civic responsibilities. Regardless of what kind of parenting they get they should not be questioned by a law enforcement authority without a guardian present to protect the interests of the child.

Since we're discussing their best interest let me ask this: Do you support a 13 year old girl having access to abortion services without the guidance/awareness of her guardian? Just trying to grasp the big picture, here.
 
Since we're discussing their best interest let me ask this: Do you support a 13 year old girl having access to abortion services without the guidance/awareness of her guardian? Just trying to grasp the big picture, here.

I support mandatory state-funded birth control for minors, male and female. I also support licensing and mandatory school requirements in order to conceive a child.
 
To be perfectly fair, the kid did say that Obama should "watch out for suicide bombers." The Secret Service should at least follow up anything that is remotely a threat to the President. If they didn't, and Obama did get killed, we'd be berating them for not doing their job.

(and I think that's true no matter what party the President belongs to.)
Law enforcement agencies still have laws and guidelines to follow, they had no right to question a minor without parents being present.
 
Law enforcement agencies still have laws and guidelines to follow, they had no right to question a minor without parents being present.

In some cases they actually can question a child without a parent present.

Anything the child said would likely be inadmissible in court, but the agent probably never had any interest in pressing charges in the first place. He was just verifying that it was actually a child making the facebook post and not some al-qaeda member with a child's photo on his facebook page.
 
Last edited:
Law enforcement agencies still have laws and guidelines to follow, they had no right to question a minor without parents being present.

Why not?

What if this was a child of one of the 9/11 attackers? In retrospect - if one of them had a child, their child said something that hinted at a possible issue happenening, and we did nothing - then that would have been wrapped up in the 9/11 investigatoin, report - and no one would be giving a **** about whether or not the kid's parents were 'there' - instead, people would be wondering why no one looked into anything.

I'm sorry - but parents aren't always the best people ot have present because parents aren't perfect.

But having an investigator alone with a child isn't wise, either. So I do feel that if a parent isn't preferred to be present because he/she might be a concern then a human-services or other some such individual should be present to ensure that the child's rights aren't being trampled in the process.
 
Last edited:
Umm, your far fetched scenario still isn't a good excuse to give law enforcement an excuse to tread on a citizens civil liberties. Why people like you make excuses for our government to discard all regard for our laws completely baffles me.
Why not?

What if this was a child of one of the 9/11 attackers? In retrospect - if one of them had a child, their child said something that hinted at a possible issue happenening, and we did nothing - then that would have been wrapped up in the 9/11 investigatoin, report - and no one would be giving a **** about whether or not the kid's parents were 'there' - instead, people would be wondering why no one looked into anything.

I'm sorry - but parents aren't always the best people ot have present because parents aren't perfect.

But having an investigator alone with a child isn't wise, either. So I do feel that if a parent isn't preferred to be present because he/she might be a concern then a human-services or other some such individual should be present to ensure that the child's rights aren't being trampled in the process.
 
Umm, your far fetched scenario still isn't a good excuse to give law enforcement an excuse to tread on a citizens civil liberties. Why people like you make excuses for our government to discard all regard for our laws completely baffles me.

What - terrorists and people who might want to kill the president CAN'T possibly have kids or something?

Of course they can.

Meanwhile - a crazed mother murdered here 6 year old son and dumped his body on the roadside in Maine to be found by passerby's.
 
What - terrorists and people who might want to kill the president CAN'T possibly have kids or something?

Of course they can.
And this has to do with law enforcement disregarding civil liberties, how? Your "what if" senarios are comical.

Meanwhile - a crazed mother murdered here 6 year old son and dumped his body on the roadside in Maine to be found by passerby's.
So all parents want to murder their children, and shouldn't be present when law enforcement interrogates their children? Wow, you got some brilliant logic going on.
 
Back
Top Bottom