The global political arena is dominated by instances of ethical and moral dilemmas. Governments have had to make tough choices that seem to transgress ethical, moral, and sometimes political boundaries. In the United States, both Obama and Bush administrations have had several differences in political and ethical opinions. Consequently, when Obama came to power, part of his job was to reverse some of the policies that had been instituted by President Bush. One prominent example of such policies touched on the establishment and operations of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. There are several ethical and political issues surrounding the operation and maintenance of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. The detention center was set up as a tool for helping the United States government in the war against terror. However, several ethical and political dilemmas have since arisen from the operation of Guantanamo Bay. The detention center was set up through an executive order, and President Obama sought to use a similar order to shut it down. This paper explores how Guantanamo Bay affected the ethical and political institutions of the United States Government. The history of Guantanamo Bay dates back to 2002 when the United States government sought to transform the naval base into a prison camp for ‘extraordinarily dangerous’ prisoners (Shamir-Borer, 2007). Former President Bush was instrumental in the opening of the prison as it was part of his anti-terror program. Since the Guantanamo Bay was established, it has detained a total of seven hundred and seventy-five prisoners. However, four hundred and twenty of these prisoners have been released without facing any charges. Sometimes prisoners remain in the detention center for several days after they have been acquitted. The government also fears to return other prisoners to their home countries as they might be persecuted (Sulmasy, 2009). In 2005, an executive order that sought to restrict the prisoners’ judicial regimen to the military justice system was instituted. Consequently, the detainees at Guantanamo Bay could not be eligible for the non-military judicial procedure. However, this executive order was faulted by the Supreme Court because it sought the indefinite detention of prisoners. In a rejoinder, the Bush administration passed the MCA (Military Commissions Act of 2006) whose aim was to give detainees fair and just military trials. One of the political dilemmas surrounding the establishment of Guantanamo Bay is the MCA. The MCA fails to comply with the international rules of warfare or the fundamental principles of the constitution (Egan, 2007). For instance, the MCA endorses tribunals that contradict the existing international conflicts and warfare guidelines. The specifics of this contradiction were highlighted by the Supreme Court’s decision in the case pitting the secretary of defense against Osama bin Laden’s chauffeur, Salim Hamdan. In its judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the MCA “lacks the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949” (Murphy, 2011). After this ruling, se