Could any of this questioning have occurred without aggression? Why is the aggressive tone necessary? Would the conclusion have been any different if the ques

Could any of this questioning have occurred without aggression? Why is the aggressive tone necessary? Would the conclusion have been any different if the questioners had been more civil? EDIT: Personally, I think the process of reviewing whether a person is a security threat, should be a much more sombre affair. Level headed pragmatism is necessary to make informed, sensible judgements. It sounds very much like the security staff were living up to the clichéd machismo of their TV or film-based counterparts .. and it leads me to think that intelligence is being supplanted by each staff member's personal desire to project authority.