Rob Rogers by Rob Rogers

Rob Rogers

Comments (25) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Never should have spent the billions to build "Gitmo’,and should have brought them here for trial as “criminals”, not “combatants”, and yes, Obama should have closed it with his first executive order and brought the truly “bad guys” here for trial. After all, Gitmo IS U.S. “territory” by treaty with Cuba when we gave them their freedom from Spain.

  2. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, over 1 year ago

    The UN keeps trying to interfere with the War on Terror.

    Fortunately, the US is NOT accountable to the UN, so the US can continue to do whatever it wants to terrorists, and ‘terrorist’ means anyone the US government declares is a terrorist, proof and evidence can NOT be used since that’s all classified Top Secret.


    The Constitution, of course, has been suspended for the duration, as it must be to keep the US safe.


    Americans are very lucky that they’ve had two excellent presidents who haven’t let the UN or the Constitution stop them from keeping America safe.

  3. zoidknight

    zoidknight said, over 1 year ago

    @Michael wme

    Perhaps if you idiot liberals would stop insisting we let these terrorists into the country for the last 50 years, this would not have happened.

  4. zoidknight

    zoidknight said, over 1 year ago

    @Mr. King

    Try reading some of the laws and executive actions he has passed.

  5. zoidknight

    zoidknight said, over 1 year ago

    @russell5419

    That is his plan.

  6. babka

    babka GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    word. !

  7. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release said, over 1 year ago

    Exactly the reason why they are held overseas and not within any U.S. territory: to subvert the rule of law.

  8. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 1 year ago

    Gitmo could have been closed by now had Congress not passed a number of NIMBY laws.

    If our courts can convict and our prisons can hold John Wayne Gacy, Timothy McVeigh, the Unabombr, and other crackpots and big-time criminals, they can do the same with Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. And wait until he meets his roommate, and the guys down the hall. He would wish he was back at Gitmo.

  9. californicated1

    californicated1 said, over 1 year ago

    @I Play One On TV

    The problem here was that the George W. Bush administration, in ramrodding the legislation following the 911 attacks, was all for skirting International Law when it did not suit the US, and that is where the “Patriot Act” and even the laws that set up “Gitmo” as a prison in the first place.

    By insisting that these captured enemies were “combatants” instead of Prisoners-Of-War, the US Government wanted to skirt International Law on their treatment.

    The problem here was that these combatants were nationals from many countries all over the world, including a few American citizens out there and thanks to Yankee arrogance brought on by Californian stupidity or short-sightedness because it was California Law Professors like John Yoo who drew up this nonsense in the first place, there could be some argument that these “enemy combatants” were not POW’s.

    Under International Law, mercenaries, volunteers and auxilliaries captured by one side in a war are usually treated as POW’s if they are not citizens of the power that captured them, but when Yoo pressed for removing the description of these foreign nationals as either mercenaries or auxilliaries since they were not apparently sent there under the instructions of a government or in the pay of an employer, all that was left in the description was “volunteer”, which that California Law Professor would base the definition of “enemy combatant” on and create a whole new legal construct and questionable construct around, especially on their treatment.

    This stuff is going to be important when the next civil war happens here in these United States, because it could probably be argued that the sides fighting against the US Government or any of the states in the Union backing that government will be considered “enemy combatants” instead of POW’s, different from how our ancestors treated each other in the last civil war back in the 1860s, in spite of camps like Andersonville, Georgia, but that was more because the Georgian countryside was also suffering and that they could not treat the Union Prisoners any different because of the sacrifices made in the countryside by the people—if the people were starving because they could not be fed, then the Union POW’s could not be fed, either.

  10. Rickapolis

    Rickapolis said, over 1 year ago

    This congress is every bit as dangerous as our foreign enemies. The continued obstruction of all reasonable legislation proves that beyond all question.

  11. coraryan

    coraryan GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @dtroutma

    Give them trials under the criminal system? They are not citizens – they have NO RIGHTS in this country, period! The rule in wartime always has been if you are caught out of uniform, you are considered a spy & can be shot on sight. They were not wearing a uniform, were they? So why weren’t they shot? Quit coddling these animals.

  12. pirate227

    pirate227 said, over 1 year ago

    That’s why they’re still being held without trial, RWNJ’s in the House.

  13. coraryan

    coraryan GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @onguard

    Yeah, he even named the dog after himself! Bo = his initials, B O. Poor dog better watch out after Barry’s term is over – he might end up being stir fry!

  14. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 1 year ago

    Odd than when I did a search for the legal definition of terrorist I couldn’t one. Many places defined terrorism. Is our government afraid of defining “terrorist”? “Illegal enemy combatant” is defined as

    Captured fighter in a war who is not entitled to prisoner of war status because he or she does not meet the definition of a lawful combatant as established by the Geneva Convention; a saboteur.

    Terrorist does not fit into that definition. Perhaps our government should legally define “terrorist” so that some body of law can be established to deal with foreign terrorists legally.

  15. ahab

    ahab GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @mikefive

    If an American were taken from within our borders under unrecognized legal grounds, spirited away, and held with no resources, no legal recourses, as an “enemy combatant” you would likely think that “other” country had kidnapped a U.S. citizen, and was operating as a rouge nation?

  16. Load the rest of the comments (10).