Though closing Guantanamo seems like a progressive step toward change and global freedom, the impending issue with Guantanamo’s closure is the dilemma of where to move the detainees. As of yet, specific plans have not been developed. Ideally, detainees will be tried and appropriately freed or imprisoned in their countries of origin. However, imprisoning detainees in other countries does not solve the problem, as many countries allow torture practices and offer prisoners fewer rights than the Guantanamo system. In this way, by closing Guantanamo, the U.S. will only redistribute detainees, recreating Guantanamo-like scenarios in other areas, where the U.S. is no longer responsible or in control of human rights abuses.

The process of closing the prison becomes even more complicated when considering the mental state of the inmates. Many detainees have been held and tortured at Guantanamo for years without ever attending a trial. With more than 40 suicide attempts by detainees and the damaging effects of perpetual torture and confinement, Guantanamo’s inmates are mentally drained and psychologically damaged for life, complicating matters in the event that a trial is granted. What’s worse, a large portion of detainees were turned in by foreign governments. Since the U.S. paid developing countries to hand over suspected terrorists, many of the prisoners could potentially be innocent victims of a money-starved government.

Furthermore, problems persist concerning the questionable innocence of these men. With a lack of sufficient evidence against many of the most dangerous detainees, it would be impossible to try many of the men. As some of these men have openly vowed to avenge the U.S. for their treatment, freeing them becomes a question of national security. The debate intensifies because by detaining these men without a trial, America is infringing upon human rights. Now, America must evaluate whether the maintenance of justice is worth the risk of retaliation.

This issue challenges America’s values, opposing our regard for safety against our idealistic democratic goals. Theoretically, according to democratic ideals, the men should be freed. But, if harmful prisoners are freed, America is endangered. However, detaining the men without trial condones undemocratic practices worldwide. What is more dangerous: a potential terrorist attack, or the U.S. approval of suppression and human rights violations? This moral dilemma associated with moving detainees out of Guantanamo shatters the Obama administration’s current simplistic and underdeveloped plans concerning shutting down the prison.

By immediately closing Guantanamo, Obama signifies his dedication to the idealistic answer. In practicality, America is definitely not ready to detain the prisoners at home. By closing the prison, America is setting the burden on other countries to deal with. With a “not in my backyard” attitude, new plans for a detention law authorizing detainees’ indefinite detention in the U.S. have been rejected. Unless the Obama administration is willing to accept the burden of imprisoning and trying the detainees inside the U.S., the closure of Guantanamo will be only a superficial symbol. Detaining the prisoners elsewhere will either perpetuate the same circumstances as Guantanamo on a smaller scale and with a different name, or it will expose detainees to the more ruthless torture tactics of prisons in less developed and less just countries.

As a gesture, Guantanamo’s closure signifies a triumph of democracy and progress, a humanitarian effort by the U.S. and an example to other nations. In practice, however, the prison’s closure is not so simplistic and is problematic when considering the associated moral issues.