Maybe you should look up the word 'alleged.'

Due process is underway – under the guidance and authority of the Obasia. So what's the problem?

From the letter addressed by the three opposition leaders to Pres. Obama and PM Harper:
“The interests of justice require acknowledgement of his status as a child soldier, his release from Guantanamo Bay, and his prompt return to Canada to be dealt with in accordance with Canadian law.”

1. Omar Khadr’s “status as a child soldier” is questionable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_ch…
“International human rights law
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 38, (1989) proclaimed: “State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.” However, children who are over the age of 15 but still remain under the age of 18 are still voluntarily able to take part in combat as soldiers. …”
Actually, Mr. Khadr was two months shy of his 16th birthday. Born Sept. 19, 1986, Khadr was involved in that particular battle on July 27, 2002. Strictly speaking, the “child soldier” designation does not apply in his case.

2. The opposition’s request for “his prompt return to Canada to be dealt with in accordance with Canadian law.”
On what grounds? Has Khadr committed a crime here in Canada? No.
• 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.

• Mr. Khadr was apprehended by a foreign force, NOT Canadian forces.

• He was fighting for an opposing foreign force, NOT for Canada.

• He has been assigned a foreign (US) lawyer to defend him, as well as Canadian lawyers, to plead on his behalf, thus he is well represented.

• On June 12, 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (see Wiki reference) that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution.
Thus, Mr. Khadr’s rights continue to be more than amply protected.

Should Canada interfere with other countries' sovereignty because 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 the accused according to its laws. The role of Canada should be to ensure that the accused is afforded the opportunity to defend himself, i.e. provided with legal assistance. That has taken place in Mr. Khadr’s case.

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 sovereignty of both countries remains intact. But no country should be badgered into handing over a prisoner who has broken its laws. Nor should any country be badgered into patriating nationals who have committed crimes abroad.

Not only is there ambiguity in Michael Ignatieff's position on the handling of terror suspects in general, there is indeed ambiguity in the Liberals' position re: Omar Khadr.

On Fridays, CJAD radio in Montreal has an hour segment with the Conservative, Liberal, and NDP party strategists. Last Friday, the Liberal party strategist said something to the effect that there is a US judicial process reviewing Omar Khadr's case, and that Canada should wait for the outcome of that review, which echoes the Conservative position. Yet Michael Ignatieff signed the letter together with Duceppe and Layton requesting Khadr's immediate release. So which one is the Liberal position?