Bill Overview
Title: Preventing Terrorist Transfers to Afghanistan Act
Description: This bill prohibits Department of Defense funds from being used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release of any individual detained in the custody or control of the Department of Defense at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the custody or control of Afghanistan.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: Detainees at Guantanamo Bay and indirectly Afghan population
Estimated Size: 0
- The bill prevents the transfer of individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan.
- Approximately 30-40 individuals are still detained at Guantanamo Bay.
- These detainees were captured as part of the U.S.'s counterterrorism efforts and originate from various countries, including Afghanistan.
- The bill directly affects the detainees by limiting their potential transfer destinations.
- Afghanistan and its population may be indirectly affected as the presence or absence of these detainees might impact local security dynamics.
Reasoning
- Given the specific nature of the policy, it directly affects a very small and specific group of people, i.e., detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and indirectly through national and international security concerns.
- Since no Americans are detained at Guantanamo and the affected individuals are primarily non-US citizens, the direct impact on the general American public is negligible.
- Indirectly, however, U.S. citizens might have opinions based on perceived national security impacts and ethical concerns, which could reflect in their subjective wellbeing scores.
- Many Americans might not notice a change in their daily life or wellbeing directly due to this policy since it is highly specialized.
- Thus, the focus should be on those who are more politically engaged, security experts, or with interests in international justice and human rights matters.
- Given the budget constraints and the program's tight focus, public discourse rather than personal wellbeing is the likely area of influence.
Simulated Interviews
Professor of International Relations (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy places undue limitations on resolving Guantanamo detainee issues.
- It reflects poorly on U.S. commitment to international justice principles.
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: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy doesn't change much operationally, it's important for signaling U.S. stance on national security.
- Might compound difficulties in closing Guantanamo.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Retired Military (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stopping detainee transfers to Afghanistan is pragmatic for security.
- I feel safer knowing strict measures are in place.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Human Rights Lawyer (California)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy further delays justice for detainees.
- It’s a blow to efforts closing Guantanamo Bay.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Policy Researcher (Illinois)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s a slight security measure but doesn't change much in terms of realworld impacts.
- Resource allocation could be more efficient.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Journalist (New Jersey)
Age: 52 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could stagnate ongoing negotiations to resolve last detainees' fates.
- It reflects a policy of inaction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
Educator (Massachusetts)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We should prioritize human rights and fair treatment above all.
- This policy fails the ethical test.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 9 |
Retired Intelligence Officer (Florida)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feels like our hands are tied with these restrictions.
- There are better ways to ensure security than indefinite detention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Activist (Michigan)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It adds another hurdle to delivering justice.
- This policy’s morality is questionable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Defense Contractor (Virginia)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Maintaining strict control of detainee movements is crucial.
- This policy is just a preventative measure, nothing more.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy maintains the current state of detainment procedures at Guantanamo Bay without facilitating detainee transfers to Afghanistan.
- There are anticipated indirect benefits concerning national security and detainee management consistency.
- This approach could continue to stir international debate about detainee treatment and human rights practices at Guantanamo Bay.