Protestors in Edmonton demand that Khadr be returned to Canada

I guess, in this case, they see it as policy issue as opposed to a constitutional issue.  The Canadian Government accepted the Courts ruling on gay marriage.  In that case though, it took the issue out of the political arena.  It was also an issue challenged under the Charter of Rights. 

The Khadr issue is complicated and you can get as many opinions on it as there are people in Canada.  Even if the Canadian government complied, which I think they will if the Supreme Court rules against its logic, there is no guarantee that the United States will hand him over to Canadian authorities without some guarantees.

We run into similar issues when it comes to death penalty cases of Canadian citizens in the United States.  While former governments have intervened, this one has chosen not to.

In the case of wanted criminals that have taken refuge in Canada, Canada has always sought guarantees that the death penalty not be on the table before extraditing them to the U.S>

Well, I learn something new (usually several somethings) every day.  I did not know that Canada has no death penalty?  I feel so ignorant....

The Khadr issue, the KSM issue, the Hasan issue, the....well, I could go on, but you get my point....It seems like a running theme these days with terrorists and our judicial systems.  It seems, and I could be wrong, that Canada wants Khadr so they can give him a "lighter" punishment than the US would.  It seems, and I could be wrong, the trying the 9/11 terrorists in NY is a REALLY bad idea.  It seems, and I'm tired of being wrong (haha), that Hasan being tried by military court martial makes sense, but won't bring due justice.

In all likelihood, I would think, and this is speculation only, his lawyers feel that there would be a better chance to win the case for the defence. 

I would think they could try to get the charges dismissed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions have articles that prohibit use of Child Soldiers.

Well that opens up a whole new can of worms, ACP.  Do we consider Al Qaida and the Taliban militaries, or terrorist organizations?  It would seem to me, that in order for the "child soldier" defense (it's an 's', not a 'c' :P) to hold any water then the organization he was fighting for would have to be considered a military, and he an enlisted soldier in that military.

Are the Columbine shooters "child soldiers"?  The so-called "trench coat gang", are they a group of child soldiers?  Of course not.  They're radically misguided, true, but they're just terrorists, same as Khadr.

Hahahaha, yes ACP, I know defense vs defence, I was just making a not-so-funny :)

Oh believe me, I'm not a lawyer either, I was just trying to bring out some of your knowledge of the Canadian legal system, because I'm sadly ignorant of it.  Also, your personal opinion wouldn't be unappreciated. 

I mean, really, let's cut away the political and bureaucratical nonsense and talk in plain Queen's English (if you prefer :-P).....The guy's a terrorist.  He commited acts of terrorism as a child, granted, but he's an adult now, and I'm fairly sure turning 18 didn't change his anti-US/anti-Christian/anti-whatever views.  The liberal-minded can try to hide behind Geneva and Canada's legal system, to try to protect this guy's human rights, but I firmly believe some people (Khadr, Hasan, etc) no longer deserve human rights.  Inhumane acts doth not a human make.  (Just made that up, think I should copyright it?)

You bet there are two sides to this issue for sure.  I don't know where the Obama Administration stands on this issue, however I think if they felt that he was something other than a terrorist they would have asked Canada to take him back already.

Politically, I think there would be an awful backlash against the Administration if they decided to cut him lose and Canada's legal system were able to get the case dismissed.

I think they have already taken a big risk with KSM and four others with their decision to try them in New York.  Obviously they have evidence on those five guys that will convict them under the U.S. legal system.

Khadr has been selected to be tried in a Military Tribunal though, maybe all the evidence they have on him would be thrown out in a civil court.

I find it odd that five would be tried in civil court, while the others are being tried by Military Tribunal.

I also think that the prisoner released to third countries to this point had not been charged, but don't quote me on that lol.

I think the issue is really more complicated than that.  The U.S. classified him as an enemy combatant.  He was picked up on the battlefield and the Taliban nor Al Quaeda wear uniforms.  Apparent your Attorney General agrees with this take, after all he wants to try him with a Military Tribunal, while KSM and four others are being tried in civilian court.

I think those that want to get him brought home and also hope to have charges dismissed will be using the Canadian Charter of Rights and not the Constitution Act of 1982. 

Some also consider him a child soldier under the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter.

Can you just imagine if Welcome Back Khadr is brought home? To who? His Mom who sent him as a gift to al Qaeda to die for allah?

Shades of Norman Bates!

First of all, I should throw it out there, I am currently a law student (in my final year) studying international law at U of T. I won’t jump into a legal argument with anyone here, unless that is what someone wants, but instead I'm going to challenge the general biased and rather ignorant comments made on this page. First of all, I will say that I agree that anyone who kills innocent civilians is sorry excuse for a human being and instead has more in common with filth at the bottom of a sewer than with other human beings. Thus having this philosophy to guide me, I think (note the following are my opinions and not law...hence the 'I think".) 'terrorists' who attack civilians (such as those who carried out 9/11) should be tried and charged. However, at the same time, Khadr killed neither a civilian nor an innocent person. Khadr killed a soldier who was invading his country. He is still acting in an unlawful manner, but not as a terrorist (the loose definition of terrorist, though no official definition exists, is understood to be an individual, group, or organization that carries out acts of violence against civilian society in order to instill fear within a population, so as to achieve political, social, economic, or religious goals (key there being CIVILIAN society). So let’s stop talking about the boy as a terrorist, he killed a soldier not a civilian. Second, MBenson82, do not attempt to read the minds of others. You do not know if he hates the west, if he hates us Christians, or the like; he may well of thought that he needed to protect his country from an invading force (which does not excuse his actions but it may prove that his motive were not ideological). Further still, everyone on this board argues about International law, yet if you gave a damn about international law you would demand that George W. Bush be tried for his crimes (make no mistake about it, this is not opinion but fact that W. Bush is in violation of several international laws and were he not the president of the U.S but a weaker nation he would be tried. There are currently multiple cases filed against Bush at the International court, of course they will go nowhere, but it is important for people to know that they have been filed.). Finally, the Omar Khadr case is about more than international law, it is about values and ethics. You see ultimately we are not judged by how we treat our friends but by how we treat our enemies. Canada, the U.S, and other countries who claim to be moral, ethical, and human rights oriented nations (though the U.S does not fit at all on that list) must act in manners corresponding to those claims if they are to convince anyone. So when Canada champion R2P (right to protect), human rights, opposes the use and prosecution of child soldiers, and etc; it must then act to ensure it upholds those principles itself. The fact of the matter is Khadr was 15, if this was a U.S citizen who had killed a foreign soldier (at any age, let alone 15), the U.S media, politicians, and others would be 'enraged' and 'demanding' the person’s return to the U.S. As were seeing in the case of Ms. Knox in Italy; Roy C it is the U.S that demands their citizens be returned whenever they commit a crime, annoyingly disregarding other nations laws, international law, and automatically making assumptions. It is incumbent upon Canada to fight for the release of Khadr form Gitmo ( Gitmo itself stands against all international laws and norms and is in fact a massively and disgustingly flagrant violation of human rights and international law) and into Canadian custody. We will then prosecute him for appropriate crimes and place him in an appropriate facility so that he may repay his debt. Make absolutely no mistake about it albertacowpoke, Khadr’s detention is not a complicated matter, it is a very simple matter, it is only made 'complicated' by the U.S.! Plain and simple Khadr detention is ILLEGAL! Then again....when have we ever known the U.S to acknowledge (let alone respect international law....ahhhheem Iraq, Gitmo, etc, etc) other than in speeches and on paper. Demand Khadr's release albertacowpoke, criminal or not, he is entitled to human rights (the only requisite for such rights is simply being human). I close with a quote from Sa’di (a Persian poet that Mr. Obama himself has quoted) “Human beings are members of whole, in creation of one essence and soul, if one member is afflicted with pain, uneasy other members must remain. If you have no sympathy for human pain, the name of human you cannot retain.” So do not forget, MBenson82, if inhuman acts doth not a human make, than you too may not make inhumane acts. Your politicians, your military, and you if you support them are performing inhuman acts; so if you wish to apply your definition, than you yourself are not human. Have sympathy for all mankind, not just those who love you and our cultures. P.S- Sorry for the somewhat incoherent structure of the comment, it is after all a comment on a site and not an essay, but regardless I wish I had the time to put together a better written comment (I rushed and wrote it in between studying and now I must return to those very law books that you good people are arguing about). There are many legal aspects I could get into, as well as moral, and ethical aspect; with this comment being extremely long already, I ask that if you wish to explore this with me further, let me know and I will gladly discuss things deeper with you. Thanks for reading...if you read the whole think lol.

Thanks for your comments and insight Observer.  I actually did read your whole comment.  You make some valid points, however you must admit, especially being a law student, that everything in law is open to interpretation. 

It was (is) my pleasure albertacowpoke and thanks for your article as well as your passion regarding the issue. I would say that most things in law--a vast majority--are open to interpretation but to a certain degree. We can stretch, bend, and pull law in order to interpret it in different ways; but in the end we can do only that...stretch it. We can't reshape it (well we can but through legislation and the such, I mean we can't change existing laws unless that is our intention, in which case there is no need to interpret the law because one is attempting to change it. Lol but all of that is besides the point...I think you know what I mean regarding we can't reshape law).