Absolutely. Again, there's more I can get into some other time.
I actually wouldn't disagree with your characterization of him as a dutiful son. Stepping back and looking at it from a detached perspective, there is always something noble about sons--in this case a family of sons--standing up for their patrimony and for their father's beliefs. This sentiment is nobly and memorably represented in the Oath of the Horatii , the great classical painting by Jacques-Louis David, in which the three sons swear to defend Rome against Alba Longa. Unfortunately, if we're going to be Rome in that analogy, the Khadrs are the Curiatii and not the Horatii. He chose the wrong side, and I think it's appropriate to take that into consideration in the context of being a most dutiful son.
I can't object if Canada decides to repatriate Mr. Khadr. I think it would still be inappropriate to apply domestic Canadian criminal law. Geneva conventions nowhere presuppose or require that a domestic civil law of Canada be applied to Canadians who are detained in the battlefield. If Canadian soldiers were detained in Italy, Japan, or Germany during World War II, Canada would have had no right to demand that the military tribunal supply full Canadian civil domestic law. If he were to be brought back, it would be inappropriate for him to be tried in a civilian court. He's an illegal combatant, not a bank robber or a shoplifter.
Finally, on whether he's a gentleman or not, clearly it's a rhetorical point, but it's based on publicly available evidence. Gentlemen don't take up arms against their country and its allies. Apart from the other side, I think any definition would preclude him being called a gentleman. Perhaps he will grow up to be one some day.
On the War Measures Act, Tommy Douglas was prescient and quite right on that point. I used that to show that every country that provides habeas corpus also provides--and the Canadian charter still provides--for habeas corpus to be suspended.
I think that addresses as much as I can of your point.