@Yonadav
If she's an enemy combatant, at the end of the conflict, when the US president will declare the Islamic State of Syria defeated, she will go free because that's what happen to enemy combatant at the end of a conflict unless they have commited war crimes. She did not. You don't want her to be judged as an enemy combatant for this reason. You want her judged as a member of a terrorist organisation. Since she's low level and never carried out any attack, only propaganda and incitment, she will not get an enormous sentence, but still a fairly severe one if only due to her fame. That's why I think that under such an accusation, she will probably get something like 20 years of prison and will probably be liberated sooner then that on good conduct. 20 years of prison is actually the maximum she can get according the US laws since she only provided support and resources and never carried out any attack herself. The job of the court isn't to appease the bloodlust of the civilian population, but render justice. That's one of the most important difference between a liberal democracy and ISIS justice system. Bring her back, judge her for her crime, not some imaginary fantasy, and condamned her in accordance with the law. No, life in prison is extremely unlikely and the death penalty is pretty much out of the question due to the extend of her crime. Just hope that like many political revolutionnary, when she will hit her 40's, she will deradicalise and turn into your "casual", non criminal, religious fundamentalist. There has already been a lot of travesty of justice in this "War Against Terror", the US doesn't need a new one. Other countries should do the same. It's not the job of the Syrian government or that of the Federation of Northern Syria to deal with "murder tourists". Let's pickup our trash and deal with it like grown ups.
PS: I am a man, it seems you misgendered me in your last paragraph, unless I got something wrong.
If she's an enemy combatant, at the end of the conflict, when the US president will declare the Islamic State of Syria defeated, she will go free because that's what happen to enemy combatant at the end of a conflict unless they have commited war crimes. She did not. You don't want her to be judged as an enemy combatant for this reason. You want her judged as a member of a terrorist organisation. Since she's low level and never carried out any attack, only propaganda and incitment, she will not get an enormous sentence, but still a fairly severe one if only due to her fame. That's why I think that under such an accusation, she will probably get something like 20 years of prison and will probably be liberated sooner then that on good conduct. 20 years of prison is actually the maximum she can get according the US laws since she only provided support and resources and never carried out any attack herself. The job of the court isn't to appease the bloodlust of the civilian population, but render justice. That's one of the most important difference between a liberal democracy and ISIS justice system. Bring her back, judge her for her crime, not some imaginary fantasy, and condamned her in accordance with the law. No, life in prison is extremely unlikely and the death penalty is pretty much out of the question due to the extend of her crime. Just hope that like many political revolutionnary, when she will hit her 40's, she will deradicalise and turn into your "casual", non criminal, religious fundamentalist. There has already been a lot of travesty of justice in this "War Against Terror", the US doesn't need a new one. Other countries should do the same. It's not the job of the Syrian government or that of the Federation of Northern Syria to deal with "murder tourists". Let's pickup our trash and deal with it like grown ups.
PS: I am a man, it seems you misgendered me in your last paragraph, unless I got something wrong.
