I think it may be good to clarify this, not just for members of the committee but also for the wider audience out there who might be listening to this.
Obviously, none of us is dismissing that there are issues of concern about what has taken place. None of us is saying that we should dismiss those concerns out of hand. There are some serious allegations about what Omar Khadr has in fact committed.
The question is the process of how we get to deal with those issues. A military tribunal is not the right venue for a child soldier to be in. Also, this particular military tribunal of the U.S. is being seriously questioned by international legal experts as maybe being outside international law. So there is a whole question about the process and how it's being handled. So advocacy for him is not so that we can say yes, come here and you can be scott free, as we'll just ignore whatever happened. That's not the issue.
I think there has to be a clarification that this is not what we intend to do. I think the government also needs to understand that perspective as well, that what is really in question is this whole tribunal and the way he is being handled. Guantanamo is in fact outside of international law, and we should all be opposed to what's taking place there. There is not a legal process, as all the habeas corpus rules have basically been tossed out the door. Even if he is found to be innocent by the military tribunal—and this is what I find really appalling about the whole thing—he is still going to be classified as an unlawful combatant and could be held there indefinitely, as well as in the U.S.
So the whole process is totally new; it's in the realm of something that we've always opposed. It does not abide by international law and international norms of the judicial process. I think that is the point that needs to be clarified and emphasized.