Yes, it was. Doesn't matter who you are, or who they are, it's not right. The people defending the use of chemical weapons because "they were attacked" haven't considered history or precedent.
In 2002, a 15-year-old kid ALLEGEDLY - it was never proven - tossed a grenade over a wall and killed an Army medic in Afghanistan. So, the kid was locked away and tortured in gitmo as a "war criminal" (for killing a medic) for 10 years.
Where does the direct use of chemical weapons fall on the "sent to gitmo" scale?
Yes, it was. Doesn't matter who you are, or who they are, it's not right. The people defending the use of chemical weapons because "they were attacked" haven't considered history or precedent.
In 2002, a 15-year-old kid ALLEGEDLY - it was never proven - tossed a grenade over a wall and killed an Army medic in Afghanistan. So, the kid was locked away and tortured in gitmo as a "war criminal" (for killing a medic) for 10 years.
Where does the direct use of chemical weapons fall on the "sent to gitmo" scale?