Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Marks 25 Years: Why the Prison Remains Open Despite War's End

Twenty-five years after the United States established a detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the prison remains operational even though the conflict that prompted its creation has formally concluded. The facility, which once housed hundreds of detainees captured in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and the subsequent US invasion of Afghanistan, continues to hold prisoners despite repeated political promises to close it. Al Jazeera's Noor Wazwaz examined this lingering question in a recent report, highlighting the stark disconnect between the war's official end and the prison's indefinite continuation.

The Guantanamo Bay detention camp was opened in January 2002 as a temporary holding site for individuals suspected of ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. At its peak, the facility held approximately 780 detainees from dozens of countries. The US government chose the location partly because it sits on Cuban soil leased to the US under a treaty dating back to 1903, and officials argued this placed it outside the jurisdiction of US federal courts. This legal reasoning formed the foundation for the prison's enduring existence, even as the original armed conflict in Afghanistan wound down after two decades of fighting.

The prison's population has dwindled dramatically over the years. Today, only a small fraction of the original detainee count remains behind its walls. Many were transferred to third countries, released after years of detention without charge, or repatriated. Yet for those who remain, the prospect of release appears increasingly remote. The facility continues to house individuals who have never been formally charged with crimes or given access to trials in US civilian courts, a practice that has drawn widespread condemnation from human rights organizations and international legal bodies.

Successive US presidents have acknowledged the reputational and legal challenges posed by Guantanamo. Former President Barack Obama made closing the facility a central promise of his administration, signing an executive order within days of taking office in 2009. However, congressional opposition, logistical hurdles, and concerns about where to relocate detainees ultimately thwarted those efforts. President Donald Trump, during his first term, signed an executive order directing the prison to remain open indefinitely, reversing his predecessor's policy. The Biden administration also expressed intentions to close the facility but failed to achieve that goal before leaving office.

The legal framework surrounding Guantanamo remains deeply contested. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2008, in Boumediene v. Bush, that detainees held at Guantanamo have the constitutional right to challenge their detention in federal court through habeas corpus petitions. Despite this ruling, the practical realities of litigating cases involving national security concerns have meant that many detainees remain in a state of legal limbo, with their cases proceeding at a glacial pace or stalled entirely.

Military commissions established to try detainees have been criticized for procedural shortcomings and delays. These tribunals, which operate separately from the civilian federal court system, have been plagued by controversies over the admissibility of evidence obtained through coercion, the handling of classified information, and the fairness of proceedings. Several high-profile cases, including those involving individuals accused of orchestrating the September 11 attacks, have dragged on for years without resolution, leaving victims' families and defendants alike in prolonged uncertainty.

The financial cost of maintaining the facility is staggering. Operating expenses for Guantanamo Bay have been estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars annually, with the per-detainee cost far exceeding that of housing inmates in maximum-security federal prisons within the United States. Critics argue that this expenditure is difficult to justify, particularly given the diminishing number of detainees and the availability of secure facilities on American soil capable of holding individuals deemed too dangerous for release.

International human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have repeatedly called for the prison's closure. They argue that the facility's existence undermines the United States' moral authority and sets a troubling precedent for other nations that may seek to detain individuals indefinitely without charge. The United Nations has also urged the US government to close the facility, with special rapporteurs describing the ongoing detention of individuals without trial as a violation of international law.

The geopolitical implications of Guantanamo's continued operation extend beyond legal and humanitarian concerns. US allies have occasionally expressed discomfort with the facility, viewing it as a symbol of the excesses of the global war on terror. Conversely, adversarial nations have used Guantanamo as a propaganda tool, pointing to the prison as evidence of American hypocrisy regarding human rights and the rule of law. The facility's persistence complicates US efforts to promote democratic values and judicial fairness abroad.

Domestically, public opinion on Guantanamo has shifted over time. In the years immediately following the September 11 attacks, the facility enjoyed broad support as a necessary tool for preventing future terrorist acts. As the years passed and revelations emerged about interrogation techniques widely considered to constitute torture, support waned among some segments of the American public. Nevertheless, a significant portion of the US population and many lawmakers continue to oppose closing the prison, citing concerns that released detainees could pose security threats.

The question of what to do with the remaining detainees remains a central obstacle to closure. Options include transferring them to third countries willing to accept them under security guarantees, prosecuting them in US federal courts, or holding them indefinitely under the laws of war. Each option carries political and legal risks. Transferring detainees to countries with questionable human rights records raises concerns about torture or mistreatment, while federal prosecution may expose classified evidence and intelligence sources to disclosure.

For the individuals still held at Guantanamo, the passage of twenty-five years represents a lifetime of uncertainty. Many have experienced declining physical and mental health, with reports of hunger strikes, suicide attempts, and deteriorating medical conditions. Advocates for detainees argue that the prolonged confinement without charge or trial constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, regardless of the original circumstances of their capture.

The facility's continued existence also raises questions about the future of US detention policy in the post-Afghanistan era. With the war in Afghanistan officially over and the US military presence there concluded, the legal rationale that framed Guantanamo as a wartime necessity has become increasingly strained. Some legal scholars argue that the authorization for the use of military force passed by Congress in 2001, which provided the legal basis for detaining individuals at Guantanamo, should be revisited or repealed given the changed circumstances.

As the prison enters its second quarter-century, the debate over its closure shows no signs of resolution. The combination of political inertia, security concerns, legal complexities, and the absence of a clear consensus on detainee disposition has created a stalemate that appears likely to persist. Without decisive action from the US Congress or the executive branch, Guantanamo Bay will remain a symbol of unresolved questions about the balance between national security and fundamental rights—a debate that has defined the post-9/11 era and shows no sign of reaching a conclusion.