POLISCOPE
Back to feed
FEDERALhearing transcript
High Impact

Congressional Hearing on the Plan to Close Guantanamo Bay

Original title: THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN TO CLOSE THE GUANTANAMO BAY DETENTION FACILITY: AT WHAT FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY COST?

January 1, 2016

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

The hearing examines the federal government's policy and security protocols for transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay to other nations, which impacts national security strategy and international diplomatic relations.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

U.S. Department of State

The agency is responsible for negotiating the transfer of detainees to foreign nations.

U.S. Department of Defense

The agency manages the detention facility and the logistics of detainee transfers.

Recipient Countries (e.g., Uruguay, Ghana)

These nations are tasked with monitoring former detainees transferred from Guantanamo Bay.

What changed

Last recorded activity January 1, 2016.

What's next

Next step not available in the current record.

Summary

This document is a transcript from a 2016 House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing regarding the Obama Administration's plan to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The hearing focused on the security risks associated with transferring detainees to foreign countries and the administration's process for vetting those transfers.

Key Facts

  • The hearing took place on March 23, 2016, before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  • The administration's closure plan included the transfer of 35 detainees during the summer of 2016.
  • Chairman Royce cited concerns regarding the ability of recipient countries, such as Ghana and Uruguay, to monitor released detainees.
  • The committee investigated the 2014 transfer of six detainees to Uruguay, alleging that the State Department provided inaccurate information to Uruguayan officials regarding the detainees' backgrounds.
  • The committee noted that over 30 percent of previously released detainees were suspected of returning to militant activities.
  • Federal law requires that steps be taken to 'substantially mitigate the risk' of released individuals threatening the United States.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the purpose of this hearing?
The hearing was held to examine the administration's plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and to question the foreign policy and national security implications of transferring detainees to other countries.
How many detainees were scheduled for transfer in the summer of 2016?
According to the administration's plan mentioned in the hearing, 35 detainees were set to be transferred.

Why It Matters

The hearing examines the federal government's policy and security protocols for transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay to other nations, which impacts national security strategy and international diplomatic relations.

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Sponsors

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift90% confidence

Detainee Transfer Vetting Concerns

The hearing reveals a significant conflict regarding the transparency of information provided to foreign governments during detainee transfer negotiations.

Connected Entities

personPaul M. LewisSpecial Envoy for Guantanamo Detention Closure, U.S. Department of DefenseMap →
personLee WoloskySpecial Envoy for Guantanamo Closure, U.S. Department of StateMap →
personEdward R. RoyceChairman of the House Committee on Foreign AffairsMap →
personJeff DuncanRepresentative from South Carolina and subcommittee chairmanMap →
personBarack ObamaPresident of the United States at the time of the hearingMap →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance85
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy80
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment40
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz20
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record