President Barack Obama has already taken powerful steps to distance himself from some of the more unpopular policies of his predecessor.Obama made sweeping executive orders to close the infamous Guantanamo Bay detention facility within the year and also banned the use of torture in military interrogations.These actions are causing widespread criticism from groups across the spectrum of respectability.Some detractors claim closing the camp is a major security risk. They point to evidence that many prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay are often later captured or killed in combat by U.S. or allied forces. This argument has little to do with closing the camp. These prisoners were released before the order was even on the table — many of them before Obama even took office — because there was insufficient evidence to convict them.These critics also tend to overlook the details of the order to close the facility. The order also establishes a review that will determine if there is sufficient evidence to bring the detainees to trial, or to determine if transferring them to another similar facility will constitute a national security risk.If there is not sufficient evidence to conduct a trial, we should not detain anyone. It’s one of the most fundamental tenets of our justice system.A more legitimate argument was made in an article posted on the Heritage Foundation Web Site: closing the camp will make little concrete difference. They correctly argue that Obama is closing Gitmo solely to placate critics.However, there is much more to be said for the symbolic gesture this order represents than these critics allow.The move is not simply an attempt at achieving political capital, nor is it rooted solely in abstract ideals at the expense of practicality. Obama made the decision after extended consultation with military leaders, and a host of former generals — all of whom support the decision.Colin Powell has also endorsed the order, who, besides being one of the most respected voices in politics and military affairs, is a Republican.The reason these military leaders believe the measure is justified despite its lack of practical ramifications is simple.In the president’s words: “We think that it is precisely our ideals that give us the strength and the moral high ground to be able to effectively deal with the unthinking violence that we see emanating from terrorist organizations around the world.”The reason we are justified in fighting terrorists — indeed the reason we can even call them terrorists in the first place — is because we hold true to basic ideals of right and wrong.The good guys do not torture. The good guys do not hold prisoners without justifiable evidence. These actions are employed by our enemies, and it is because of actions such as these that we call them terrorists.Like it or not, Guantanamo Bay is a symbol of an America that holds and tortures prisoners without evidence of wrongdoing. That is not the America we should be living in. That is not the America our men and women in uniform fight and die for.The symbol of that America must be destroyed.Sometimes practicality must be sacrificed for ideals, because — as it is in this case — the ideals are what make the practical concerns worth being pursued.——Contact Matthew Albright at [email protected]