Thank you.
I fully agree with that. I don't think the sins of the father should be visited on the son. But at the same time, his proximity to his family--which also brought him into proximity with al-Qaeda and the bin Laden family--makes him a very rich intelligence target. The fact that he might be treated differently because of information he knows, as the son of his father, is distinct from punishing him for being the son of his father. But I have no comment on the Khadr family. I don't know them.
I hesitate to get back to the question of “gentleman”. The only point there is that the full Geneva conventions--if you read the 100-odd articles of the Third Geneva Convention--were drafted with a very specific type of responsible soldier in mind. Members of al-Qaeda do not meet that definition, thus many, but not all, of the rights provided by the Geneva conventions are anachronistic. He's still entitled to the basic, indispensable norms of due process and humane treatment. I don't think we have a disagreement on that; it clarifies my use of the term “gentleman”.
I don't know if there's any other part of your question I didn't address.