Abdallah Hajji and Lofti Lagha knew the worst was not behind them when they boarded a plane from Guantánamo Bay detention facility back home to Tunisia in 2007. After being held in Guantánamo under suspicions of terrorist involvement, the two Tunisian nationals were independently cleared as non-enemy combatants and released back into the hands of the Tunisian government, according to a report published by Human Rights Watch. Despite pleas by the detainees to forgo the repatriation and known reports of torture in Tunisia, the U.S. government went ahead with the transfer. To no one’s great surprise, Hajji and Lagha were both viciously tortured in Tunisian prisons — all of which could have been prevented.

The U.S. government found itself in a phenomenal Catch-22. With the world watching, there was an increased pressure to release the detainees, who were not directly linked to terrorist operations. But sending these individuals back to their home country not only put them at risk of further torture, but also shook the foundations of Guantánamo, further tarnishing the credibility of American diplomacy.

That Guantánamo is a symbol of ideas immortalized through the Bush Years is evident. Yet the complete destruction of those ideals will come over a period of time on a variety of levels. While President Obama’s executive order last month effectively closed Guantánamo, the only real bite to the ordinance was the hard termination date of Jan. 22, 2010. As of now, there is no specific agenda for any detainee’s release or transfer. There is no indication the military tribunals will be completely abandoned. In fact, Obama’s order simply states any remaining detainees “shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country or transferred to another United States detention facility.” Effectively, the Guantanamo Bay detention facility will close but detentions may not.

The government now faces many of the same problems that plagued Hajji and Lagha’s situation. Signing the executive order, a highly symbolic act, signaled the priorities of the new administration. And that is important in and of itself. Still, this grand gesture barely brushes the surface. Obama’s first step is not enough.

So what about the remaining 50 to 60 detainees like Hajji and Lagha — men who have been cleared for release but cannot go home? What will be the next step?

In the past, the U.S. government has relied on diplomatic assurances –– promises of humane treatment –– to monitor the repatriation of foreign nationals. However, these arrangements are ineffective. According to Amnesty International, “The use of diplomatic assurances creates a situation in which neither state has an interest in monitoring the agreement effectively, as any breach would implicate both the sending and receiving groups in internationally prohibited acts of torture or ill-treatments.” This quagmire yields the question, how sound is our diplomatic accountability if we have knowingly sent non-U.S. citizens within our custody into positions of torture?

I find this group of detainees so troubling because they represent all that is wrong with Guantánamo Bay. Our government not only interrogated and tortured individuals within our custody to procure ill-conceived information, but also allowed for further brutality to take place on foreign soil. What is the new administration going to do to actively change this practice?

First off, all must realize that diplomatic assurances have repeatedly failed as political tools. It is reckless and irresponsible to trust these nods and winks as reliable means of following through on protecting human rights.

Second, the Department of State must follow-up more diligently on their own Country Reports, specifically in regard to human rights practices. Tunisia, in particular, was well known as a country with “significant human rights problems.” A more exhaustive examination of Tunisian practices immediately prior to the transfer would have highlighted the government’s inconsistent diplomatic accountability and may not have procured this type of outcome.

Moving forward, the U.S. should aggressively court members of the E.U. to accept detainees from China, Libya, Russia, Tunisia and Uzbekistan who likewise cannot return home for fear of torture. Portugal has already come forward to receive said individuals. In order to preserve the future integrity of the U.S. government and the safety of these individuals, we should not hesitate and instead send them to third-party countries as soon as possible.

We need a renewed sense of accountability and political consistency in order to resuscitate our credibility.

It is the Department of State’s responsibility to coordinate relocation efforts, and newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a spectrum of difficult issues to consider as she maneuvers in the international arena. Both she and Obama face a task that will aptly test if they are in fact the presidential candidates they portrayed themselves to be.

Slowly now we are coming out of our state of national distrust. In many ways, Americans are waiting for this new administration to slip up. But Guantánamo Bay is too important to allow for failure. What makes the Guantánamo Bay conundrum so compelling is the symbol of official cruelty it has come to represent.

Sure, Obama has met his campaign promise by closing the facility, but we should expect more from him as a president –– we should expect a plan. The Bush Administration was often paralyzed by its own rhetoric, I hope Obama doesn’t follow suit.