In the years following 9/11, the Bush administration established the detention center at Guantanamo Bay—an offshore facility meant to house “the worst of the worst.” It was intended to keep suspected terrorists beyond the reach of U.S. civilian courts, operating in a legal gray zone where conventional protections like habeas corpus didn’t always apply.
Today, two decades later, the conversation has returned—not just to Guantanamo, but to something even more unsettling: the idea of replicating or extending America’s harshest detention policies in other nations, like El Salvador.
The Biden administration has reportedly been exploring cooperation with Central American nations—including El Salvador—for processing and potentially detaining asylum seekers, migrants, or individuals with suspected cartel ties outside of U.S. borders. It’s a move that critics see as “Guantanamo 2.0,” cloaked in humanitarian language but rooted in fear and border control.
So the question arises: Are we protecting justice, or outsourcing it?
The Republican Perspective: National Security First
From the right, the logic is clear: the U.S. must defend its borders and its people—by any means necessary. The argument follows that when traditional systems of justice are exploited by those who intend harm, extraordinary measures are justified. Guantanamo was, and remains, to many conservatives, a symbol of strength, resilience, and unapologetic vigilance in the face of global terrorism.
The idea of establishing similar detention partnerships abroad is not about cruelty, they argue, but about capacity and containment. According to conservative commentators, the U.S. cannot absorb all individuals awaiting trial or immigration hearings—especially when those individuals may be affiliated with criminal syndicates or extremist networks.
“If someone’s trying to harm this country,” former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once remarked, “we have no obligation to give them full access to American rights.” That ethos continues to drive the argument: certain people, certain situations, require a different set of tools.
Proponents point to the dire conditions on the border, overwhelmed facilities, and the increasing sophistication of transnational criminal networks as reasons why a tough stance is not just defensible—but essential.
The Humanitarian View: A Dangerous Precedent
On the other side of the aisle—and the ideological divide—is a growing coalition of legal scholars, human rights organizations, and immigrant advocacy groups who see this approach as deeply troubling. Guantanamo Bay, in their view, wasn’t a necessary evil—it was a moral failure. A place where due process was suspended, torture was permitted, and human dignity eroded under the flag of national security.
Many are now asking whether exporting this model to countries like El Salvador risks repeating the same mistakes.
El Salvador itself has come under intense scrutiny for its own prison system, particularly under President Nayib Bukele. In his crackdown on gang violence, Bukele has filled prisons with tens of thousands of people—many detained without trial, based on suspicion alone. Journalists and rights groups have documented alleged abuses, including overcrowding, beatings, and deaths in custody.
To partner with a government under such criticism, critics argue, is to tacitly endorse its methods.
“You cannot uphold the rule of law by abandoning it abroad,” said Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “If we learned anything from Guantanamo, it’s that justice without transparency, without accountability, is not justice at all.”
The Legal and Ethical Gray Area
What complicates the matter is that the U.S. government, in both Republican and Democratic administrations, has often leaned into ambiguous territory when it comes to offshore detention. Guantanamo Bay was originally chosen not for its convenience, but for its legal loophole—not quite U.S. soil, not quite foreign either.
Legal experts like Professor Deborah Pearlstein at Princeton have pointed out that relying on these “liminal spaces” tends to erode legal norms over time. “It begins with ‘just this once,’ and ends with structural decay of civil liberties,” she wrote in Lawfare.
So Where Do We Go From Here?
America is at a crossroads—again. The security threats are real. The immigration system is strained. And the people in the middle—migrants, asylum seekers, and yes, some with dangerous histories—are human beings caught in a system that increasingly prefers efficiency over fairness.
Do we continue to export our harshest systems, or do we invest in reform at home?
Can we protect national security without abandoning human rights?
These are not questions with simple answers. But asking them—urgently and openly—might be the only way to preserve what justice is meant to be.
One thought on “Guantanamo Bay vs. El Salvador Prisons: Justice or Overreach?”