The pictures of blindfolded, gagged and manacled al Qaida inmates in a prison compound in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have rightly caused consternation among the allies of the United States of America. Criticism intensified last week, with the European Union external relations commissioner, Chris Patten, and the British and German foreign secretaries expressing concern over the treatment of prisoners. The US has agreed to introduce changes in the treatment of prisoners, after a visit by an International Committee of the Red Cross delegation. But the changes are believed to be mainly cosmetic - a green line pointing towards Mecca painted on the floor of each cell. The US, however, had stressed all along that the pictures had given a superficial impression. They were taken upon arrival when blindfolds were necessary to stop inmates getting a 'useful perspective of their surroundings', and face masks to prevent a coordinated attack. Both were removed after the prisoners were led to their cells. As camp commander, Brigadier General Michael Lehnert reiterated, prisoner welfare would continue to be monitored 'without sacrificing security'. American security concerns are partly justified. Last week, 156 Arab taliban prisoners in Pakistan escaped after overpowering their guard, whilst in transit between prisons. A more poignant reminder is the Mazar-e-Sharif massacre - about 200 taliban were killed in that uprising - which began when two agents of the Central Intelligence Agency were interrogating prisoners. Detritus of war Recognizing the volatile situation in post-taliban Afghanistan, the US decided to transport 156 al Qaida prisoners - 'the worst of the worst' according to Lehnert - to far off Cuba, with plans to relocate 2,000 more. But the need to interrogate prisoners in a secure environment has created an equally uncomfortable situation in Cuba. The furore over the pictures has drawn attention not just to the material condition of the prisoners, but to their legal status as well. The US has so far refused to recognize them as 'prisoners of war'. They are thus not guaranteed the rights stipulated in the Geneva Convention, a fact that has been used to explain away their ill treatment. There are other reasons behind their classification as 'unlawful combatants'. POWs aren't required to give any more information than their name, rank and serial number, and are liable to be repatriated. Also, as long as the prisoners are not on US soil they are denied the rights guaranteed to criminals under the American constitution, such as presumption of innocence and trial by jury. On the same day that Lehnurt was meeting the ICRC delegate, the American taliban, John Lindh, was appearing in a US court replete with a team of lawyers. Attempts by civil rights activists to guarantee the same rights to the prisoners in Cuba have so far been stalled. Supreme arbiter The US is also concerned about the issue of legitimacy, implied in the granting of POW status or rights in US courts. The charges against John Lindh have been 'demilitarized': he is accused of 'conspiracy to kill US nationals' and 'providing support and resources to terrorist organizations'. While the US does not wish to compromise its warlike stance by trying other taliban under the same laws, neither does it want to recognize the 'war on terrorism' as an actual war. As it is, the US's headlong rush into military action in Afghanistan, without first making out a case against Osama bin Laden and without a United Nations' resolution, clearly does not bear legal scrutiny. The prisoners at Guantanamo thus find themselves in the grey area between national and international law. President George W. Bush has suggested an alternative: private military tribunals - without a jury - with the power to execute. Terry Waite, in The Guardian, has drawn an unhappy parallel between the arbitrary justice that this promises and his own sense of uncertainty as a terrorist hostage in Beirut. He concludes, 'If the US is making up the rules...there will be no moral grounds on which we can stand.' And as long as there is no international court of law, only 'injustice will be seen to be done'.