Bill Overview
Title: No Transferring GITMO Terrorists to America Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the use of Department of Defense (DOD) funds to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release of any individual detained at Guantanamo to or within the United States or its territories or possessions. Individuals detained at Guantanamo means those detained as of October 1, 2009, who are not citizens of the United States or members of the U.S. Armed Forces and are in the custody or under the control of DOD or otherwise under detention. The bill also prohibits DOD funds from being used to construct or modify any facility in the United States or its territories or possessions to house any individual detained at Guantanamo for the purpose of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control of DOD. This prohibition does not apply to any modification of facilities at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Sponsors: Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-3]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay as of October 1, 2009
Estimated Size: 0
- The target population includes individuals currently detained at Guantanamo Bay.
- These individuals are as of those identified as detainees as of October 1, 2009.
- The detainees are not U.S. citizens and are held under DOD control.
- The bill aims to prevent transfer or release of these detainees to the U.S. or its territories.
Reasoning
- The policy targets foreign national detainees at Guantanamo Bay and restricts their transfer to the U.S. Therefore, it has no direct impact on U.S. citizens living on the mainland or in its territories.
- The policy effectively maintains the status quo of current detainee management practices, and the budget allocations and spending remain unaffected as the policy prevents any additional use of funds for the transfer of detainees to U.S. soil.
- For U.S. citizens, opinions on this policy may vary based on political beliefs, perspectives on national security, and humanitarian concerns regarding the treatment of detainees. However, these opinions do not translate into direct wellbeing impact scores since the policy doesn't alter their material circumstances or daily lives.
- Despite the policy having no fiscal implementation costs, it is essential to capture varying public sentiments to understand indirect social and political climates, especially among those with strong views on terrorism, national security, or human rights.
Simulated Interviews
Veteran (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support this policy as it ensures known terrorists are not brought into the U.S., which might pose a security risk.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Human Rights Activist (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy perpetuates the problematic indefinite detention of individuals without due process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Judge (California)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From a legal perspective, this policy is problematic as it avoids dealing with the legal status and rights of detainees.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
High School Teacher (Florida)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy sidesteps important discussions about human rights for detainees held for too long without resolution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Law Student (Illinois)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I oppose this policy as it ignores the need for fair trials and the realities of many detainees' situations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Rancher (Wyoming)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy affects my life at all, but I'm always for more security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
National Security Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy ensures national safety but does not address long-term detainee situations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
College Student (Virginia)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy ignores the importance of international norms and humanitarianism.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Policy Advisor (Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I agree with maintaining detainees at Guantanamo Bay for logistical and security reasons.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Journalist (Minnesota)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't solve the humanitarian issues associated with Guantanamo Bay.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $50000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $52000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $54000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $58000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $65000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $80000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy maintains current detainee placement operations, avoiding additional domestic detention costs.
- There are operational savings from not incurring additional transportation and construction expenses.
- Long-term savings depend on no future legal mandates to relocate detainees from Guantanamo to the U.S.