After reading that story in the Calgary Herald, I believe that is exactly what Mr. Harper will do, left with no other choices, Harper will bring Mr. Khadr back to Canada where he can put on as many restrictions as possible. As for the whole thing regarding Mr. Harper using the courts for his own political gains, I think that it is atrocious and a total misuse of our laws here in Canada.

Mr. Akin, you state: “Khadr, you'll remember, was arrested by U.S. troops when he was 15 on a battlefield in Afghanistan.”
Actually, Mr. Khadr was two months shy of his 16th birthday. He was born Sept. 19, 1986. He was involved in that particular battle on July 27, 2002. I may be splitting hairs, but I believe in being as precise as possible.
If the pleas regarding his plight are to be seriously considered, then the utmost care should be taken to present all the facts. I continue to read articles stating “This IS a 15 year old boy… “ and we continue to see the picture of an even younger Omar Khadr. Those tactics are playing on an emotional reaction from the public.
Also, the preamble to the Protocol you linked to, on which the Protocol is based, states:
"Noting the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in particular, the inclusion therein as a war crime, of conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years or using them to participate actively in hostilities in both international and non-international armed conflict ..."
You will notice the age mentioned there: "... conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years or using them to participate actively in hostilities ..."
I repeat, Khadr was 2 months shy of his 16th birthday.

In the same Protocol, Article 3, section 3 says:
3. States Parties that permit voluntary recruitment into their national armed forces under the age of 18 years shall maintain safeguards to ensure, as a minimum, that:
(a) Such recruitment is genuinely voluntary;
(b) Such recruitment is carried out with the informed consent of the person's parents or legal guardians;
(c) Such persons are fully informed of the duties involved in such military service;
(d) Such persons provide reliable proof of age prior to acceptance into national military service.

Does Khadr's situation conform with those conditions?
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2008/omarkadr/timeline.html
• Omar Khadr’s parents volunteered his services as a translator to militants affiliated with Al-Qaeda
• As to whether the service was voluntary, I once saw a picture online (the link to it no longer works) of a grinning Omar Khadr proudly carrying a pair of bloodied hands cut off from an adversary. He had them slung over his shoulder, as a hunter would bringing home his prize. Not a convincing picture of Khadr the “victim.”
• The conclusion one can draw from such a picture is that Khadr was well aware and happy to comply with "the duties involved in such military service."

You also write “… if Canada could have him back so that Canada's justice system can examine the actions of one of their own citizens under the laws that govern all Canadian citizens.”
However:
• Omar Khadr is accused of committing a crime against a foreign national, NOT a Canadian.
• The alleged crime was committed on foreign soil, NOT in Canada. 

• Khadr was apprehended by foreign forces, NOT Canadian forces
• He was fighting for an opposing foreign force, NOT for Canada

• He was assigned a foreign (US) lawyer to defend him, as well as Canadian lawyers, to plead on his behalf
• On June 12, 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution.
Thus, Khadr’s rights are more than amply protected.

Are we to deny other countries’ sovereignty if the accused happens to be a Canadian? If a law is broken in a foreign land, that foreign land should have the right to prosecute. Once a verdict has been handed down, the country of origin can decide to appeal, or not, the decision of the foreign country. Thus the sovereingty of both countries remains intact.

Finally, I watched one of Mr. Khadr’s lawyers Nathan Whitling interviewed on “On the Hill” (which BTW I would have liked to see you get as an assignment).
At one point, Mr. Whitling says Omar Khadr was shot three times in the back. Then, in describing the kind of torture Khadr allegedly suffered, Mr. Whitling talks of “three gaping holes in the front” presumably from those same shots. So which is it? Was Khadr shot in the back or in the front? Surely his own lawyer should know?

Anyway, I believe the US has every right to try this person in their courts of law under their own rules. Once a decision is taken, then and only then, should Canada decide on the next steps to take.

Gabby, you said everything I wanted to and more.

Thanks! That's why I use the moniker Gabby ... I guess it fits, eh? ;-)