Finally, with news of a district court ruling ordering the release of five Algerian prisoners, America seems to be taking the first steps towards shutting down the notorious Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Zachary Katznelson, the legal director of Reprieve, said “The decision by Judge Leon lays bare the flimsy basis on which Guantanamo has been founded - at best, slim evidence of dubious quality, at worst, nothing.” The famous military prison has been a stain on America’s human rights record since 2001, attracting attacks from both global media and civil rights groups. To many it seems the ruling is a long overdue acknowledgment that torture is unacceptable. However, America has history of dodging judicial rulings on civil rights - why should this be any different?

Already, Supreme Court rulings designed to protect the rights of the detainees has had little impact. This June saw a Supreme Court decision stating that every prisoner in Guantanamo has a right to a trial in a civilian court. So far 200 detainees have filed appeals against their imprisonment but the official line remains that the cases are “under review”. The Supreme Court was designed to protect the basic rights of Americans. If even its decisions can be disregarded, what hope can we possibly hold for a lowly district court decision?

The American federal court system is a labyrinth of constitutional guidelines and procedures. Political debate is rife over whether military affairs are within the realm of the federal courts. The judge presiding over the Algerian case urged the government not to appeal against the ruling. However, if this is taken to the Supreme Court, America will again face the irksome debate over civil rights, military regulations and where the judiciary system fits between them.

The problem is no one wants to talk about it. The issue of Guantanamo and torture has become politically radioactive, being passed from policy group to policy group like a hot potato. Indeed, even the Bush Administration has skirted round its own proposals to amend the way the base is run, considering it too contentious to approach during campaign season. Torture didn’t even feature on the list of Americans’ most important election issues, so why would Obama risk dividing his support base over an issue people would rather not discuss?

Even if, by some political miracle, Guantanamo Bay was shut down tomorrow, where would we put the prisoners? Imprisoned without trial, we couldn’t possibly confine them to a regular prison, and yet to release them freely onto America’s streets would be political suicide, not to mention extremely dangerous. International law forbids America from repatriating them and it is likely, anyway that they’d be tortured no matter where they ended up. The Economist asks the pertinent question, “Dare you let a 9/11 mastermind walk free?”

Closing Guantanamo Bay would be a huge victory for civil rights groups, but at what cost? When faced with the decision between the rights of few or the security of many, it still seems obvious which side of the debate the American public will support. The district court decision is by no means a revolution, nor should we expect it to be.

Related posts:

• Archbishop attacks Guantanamo Bay following UN human rights report
• Enemy Combatant: A British Muslim’s Journey to Guantanamo and Back, Moazzam Begg (with Victoria Brittain)
• Abduction, torture, interrogation: My Journey to Guantanamo
• California backtracks on gay marriage bill
• Global Focus