Mr. Bellinger wrote:

“Non liquet” asks how we will know when the war with al Qaida is over. This is an important question. Of course, in any war, you don’t know how long the war is going to go on. There have been wars that have gone on for five years, ten years, thirty years, one hundred years. But the fact that a particular conflict with an enemy may go on indefinitely does not mean we should simply release all members of the enemy we are holding so long as that conflict is continuing. There is a reason that under customary principles of international law, you may hold the people until the end of a conflict, and that is to keep dangerous people off the battlefield."

---

So Mr. Bellinger is saying that the U.S. Executive Branch should have the unquestioned right to hold any human being in any prison for their entire natural lives without any court trial or legal protections or intervention by anyone.

Discuss ...

Piotr:

With some common sense, your questions will answer themselves. You don't need to ask anyone these questions. You already know the answer.

I guess it is called "rhetorical question".

That said, there are not THAT rhetorical. American super-max inmates get insane, lots of inmates are raped,
healthcare of the prisoners is often absolutely abysmal, and the public, lawmakers etc. are very sanguine about it. When there was a scandal (I guess in Missouri) about female prisoners being raped by guards, appalled state legislature forbid inmates to talk with reporters.

The idea that the state is responsible for physical and psychiatric health of its wards is actually a minority opinion in this country.

And how many pundits raise the question: how "inhuman and degrading treatment" can serve the interests of the state, when the Administration defended its right to apply it? How many wrote that legal or not, this is a very, very bad idea?

I don't think the evidence suggests that Supermax incarcerees (who may or may not end up in Supermax facilities under proper application of the guidelines) are going mad because they are contemplating the heinousness of their crimes, a la nineteenth-century theological justifications for the penitentiary. They are going mad because they are locked up in isolation for years on end. And, if NPR's coverage of the issue is correct, they're not receiving "better" mental health treatment. They're barely receiving any at all. Group therapy with other inmates and no trained counsellors?

Now, you may believe some crimes are so horrendous that their perpetrators deserve being locked in a small box to go slowly (or quickly, as the case may be) mad. The disturbing thing is that most of these inmates are due to be released at some point. There may not be any simple answers -- but I'd certainly like to think that our prisons aren't actively creating new psychopaths in addition to warehousing pre-existing ones.