Certainly, the thought of detainees somehow escaping Supermax and posing a threat to the outside world is more outlandish than the plot of The Rock. Nor is the Guantanamo facility's continued existence and usage making the United States any safer. But let's be clear: the conditions at Supermax and similar maximum security, solitary confinement-centered facilities may very well have the same effects on the detainees as any of the torture techniques used at Guantanamo or elsewhere. As this recent, soul-crushing essay in the New Yorker demonstrated, and as the Washington Post article above cited, solitary confinement often leads to severe mental illness. It is, essentially, a form of torture.
Which leads to an unasked question: is it okay for the United States to torture, post-conviction? At most, a blanket statement opposing torture would oppose torture no matter the context: detainees from abroad or convicts from home. But context matters, and given the heightened bar for cruel practices in an American prison, a terrorist sentenced to life in Supermax, while heavily punitive, is probably not considered torture by most. But what about before their trial? What about indefinite detention, an option that President Obama has left open for some detainees?
Torture is a malleable term that we define, something that the use of the euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques" reminds me of each time I hear it. It seems clear-cut that we shouldn't place Saran-wrap over a prisoner's face, then pour water over them, nor should we strip them naked in a cold room for extended periods of time. That's torture. Locking people in 10' x 12' cells with no light, 1 hour of movement a day, and no human interaction for the rest of their lives, letting them develop several mental illness? Sounds like Hell to me, but torture? Not now, it's not, at least not for some criminals, but it goes to show just how contested seemingly simple concepts can be.