I'll start.
On the question of whether or not he could be tried in Canadian courts, I would recommend that the committee hear from Craig Forcese, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, who did an extensive study on the Canadian legal system and what sort of trial and which laws might apply. It's about a 150-page report.
This question of the U.S. commitments--under the optional protocol--to reintegration of children and consistency, in terms of child soldiers.... Even when we look at what's happened in Guantanamo, we see the inconsistencies and we see how this case and some others are being treated as exceptions. They did detain upwards of 18 to 20 people in Guantanamo who were under the age of 18 when they were captured, and seemed to have created a dividing line at age 15 at the time of transfer. It is interesting, because of course Omar wasn't transferred until he was 16.
There was a group of youths who were held in what was called Camp Iguana and treated in a very different way from Omar Khadr and a number of other people, including another young offender in that context, who was also facing trial by military commission. I mean, they were certainly interrogated; they were treated as intelligence sources, but much more of their treatment reflected some of the principles of reintegration.
I would still not hold that Guantanamo was any example around how to deal with minors, but you could see that there was that divide and there was that inconsistency. It is important to mention this because it shows that the U.S. recognized that some of those obligations under international law exist, that there is a different way you are supposed to treat children captured in a context of armed conflict. Yet Omar and some others were treated very differently.
As to why that is happening, there are many different theories out there. It does certainly seem strange to compare this trial and the particular circumstances to some of the other individuals. In the level of responsibility they are alleged to have had in terms of events following September 11, 2001, there is quite a contrast there, shall we say.
What this really gets down to is seeing someone like Omar Khadr as an individual and not seeing him as a proxy for members of his family or members of the organization he was connected with. In the end, he has to be seen as an individual child caught up in armed conflict and treated according to the law that governs that, and that is simply not what we're seeing. While it may be understandable on one level, it is simply not acceptable, and that has to change.