I'm struggling to see your position on this issue.
If she is guilty of being complicit in the suffering of others, then that suffering occured in Syria, which is where she should face trial and be incarcerated for life. If you don't agree with that then shouldn't Sacoolas face trial in the US instead of the UK then?
If she HASN'T committed any crime, then why does she need to be extradited back to the UK to face trial here? So much concern and consideration over a woman whose actions would make Hindley seem like a saint in comparison. She's not vulnerable, recent footage showed her walking around with a spring in her step and appeared in fine health. She wants to escape justice by coming to the UK, nothing more.
I don't think you debate in good faith, so I think any further discussion is pointless, the same applies to AC. The fact that you have compared her unfavorably to Myra Hindley is evidence of that. Torture tapes and a substantial body of evidence versus newspaper clippings and hearsay. You are on a black and white, fire and brimstone circle jerk with your chums.
Is it possible that she could be vulnerable and dangerous? Did that thought ever cross your mind? That things aren't as binary as you make out.
There are practical considerations and financial costs issues, why the Syrian Kurds may not be able to hold a trial and house foreign criminals for long sentences. The UK could facilitate trials, and as there are already laws that allow war crime trials for overseas offences. This isn't particularly an alien idea, when it was passed these considerations must have been in the mind of the legislators.
The same doesn't apply to Anne Saccolas in the United Kingdom, but in any case the USA would be entitled to request that she serve a sentence in USA (even if only partially) and the victim's family made unprompted remarks of having no objection to that.
I told you that the number of children in those camps exceeds the number of adults. I have made it clear several times that I am concerned about those children and believe we should do all we can to help them. As some of them have citizenship of western countries, ordinary immigration and refugee resettlement rules can be sidestepped.
I also linked an article about beheadings taking place and ISIS loyalists are the suspected culprits. Obviously the camps are not as secure as they need to be as otherwise this wouldn't happen. There needs to be a plan to tackle this. Allowing an environment where beheadings can take place could be allowing loyalist fighters to destroy potentially incriminating testimony from potential witnesses.
If she is as dangerous and complicit in crimes as you and your buddies are making out, and receives a sentence in Syrian Kurdish territory of something like 20 years, and the Syrians are able to meet the financial and practical demands of imprisoning her for that long. I wouldn't be that fussed, although I do believe that the UK, Syrian Kurds and herself should all have the right to request that she serve part of her sentence in the UK (as unlikely as the UK are to request it).
I also believe that she should have her citizenship returned regardless , as she is effectively stateless because there is no mechanism to force Bangladesh to accept her and issue travel documents, and they have already said that she would receive the death penalty.
Why should Bangladesh have the right to hand out a sentence for an offence equivalent to membership of a proscribed group when the Syrian Kurds have already said they will not be handing this out for the worst offenders?
The UK courts would never allow her to be deported to Bangladesh from the UK if the prospect of the death penalty was likely.
If she returns to the UK and there is evidence of outstanding offences , I would not be against her receiving a trial and appropriate punishment if convicted. This point applies generally, and I would feel the same about any other UK citizen, or for example Dutch and Australians and the responsibility of their governments.
