You're very concerned about the [alleged] lack of due process with regards to charging Khadr, but not very concerned about the [proven in a court of law] lack of due process with regards to the most basic human rights, that most civilized people agree should be extended to even the worst monsters?
I suppose you can say "I'm just asking the question...", and that's fine. But, is this really the question to be asked? How about "why didn't the Liberal, then PC gov'ts fight to repatriate Khadr to face justice here?
I suppose you need to be spoonfed the answer, because you can't apply Occam's razor and realize that the sensible
assumption is that charges were considered, but not laid because they didn't make sense [anymore, or ever]. Not that there is a grand conspiracy to avoid any further consideration of justice by burying heads in sand and simply ignoring certain aspects of the case.
I actually feel pretty comfortable answering your question: charges were almost certainly considered at various points in this process. They were almost certainly considered unnecessary based on shaky evidence, improbability of conviction, and the fact that the accused had already served a harsher sentence than would be expected to be given even in the unlikely result of a conviction.
But, then again, maybe the legal process would have been blind to the multiple mitigating factors in this situation, convicted Khadr as the worst adult criminal in the history of the country and made an exception to give him a public beheading GOT style, because he obviously deserved it.