There is a chronic epidemic of torture in the Middle East and it feeds directly into political militancy, conflict and terrorism. Extremist groups like al-Qaida have long been led and inspired by victims of state torture.
The west has winked and nodded at torture in the Middle East for decades. It has provided billions of dollars of military and economic aid to governments like those in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia which practise torture on a routine basis. This is one reason why the rage of Islamist militants is now directed against the west as well as against their own abusive governments. The CIA calls it blowback.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) ruled on Monday that a Jordanian cleric, Omar Othman, aka Abu Qatada, should be sent back to Jordan, a country where he faces a serious risk of being tortured. For millions of Muslims around the world this judgment will provide yet more evidence (and there is already plenty) that the links which bind western governments with Middle Eastern states which practise torture are getting stronger and cosier in the post 9/11 security climate.
Thus the SIAC has taken a step which will help do further damage to the UK's reputation among Muslims in the Middle East, and make it less likely that Muslim communities in the UK will cooperate with the police in their efforts to thwart terrorism. In short the SIAC's judgment will make the UK more vulnerable, not less, to terrorism.
The British government has argued, and the SIAC now agrees, that a memorandum of understanding signed with Jordan provides adequate guarantees that Abu Qatada will not be tortured. But extensive research by Human Rights Watch has shown that such MoUs or "diplomatic assurances" are not worth the paper they are written on. Why should Jordan respect an unenforceable bilateral agreement with the UK if it has shown on countless well-documented occasions that it does not respect its legally binding international obligations not to practice torture?
The real purpose is not to provide protection for the likes of Abu Qatada. Rather these MoUs have been invented to provide the British government with a legal fig leaf, and a flimsy one at that, behind which the UK hopes to get rid of turbulent Muslim clerics and terrorist suspects like Abu Qatada while appearing to comply with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture (according to which it is illegal to deport people to places where they face is a serious risk of torture).
The SIAC has now given credibility to this legal sleight of hand. In doing so it has ignored or dismissed much evidence - presented to the SIAC by Human Rights Watch and others - that diplomatic assurances against torture cannot be effectively monitored, that they have not worked in the past and that they are unlikely to work in the future.
Only this week the underlying principle of diplomatic assurances was undermined when it was reported that two Algerians recently deported from the UK to Algeria have been detained and face trial on terrorism charges, in spite of clear assurances given to London by the Algerian government that they would not face legal proceedings.
The SIAC ruling will have won the support of many people in the UK across the political spectrum who feel that Abu Qatada and his like have abused the hospitality of this country and should be sent back to their countries of origin as soon as possible, whatever the consequences for them.
But the fact that a measure may be popular does not make it wise or lawful. If the allegations against Abu Qatada and other suspects are as serious as they are made out to be, then these individuals should be vigorously prosecuted with the full weight of the law.
Sending them to countries like Jordan and Libya where they risk torture not only has consequences for them, but also for us. It makes our elected politicians and society indirectly responsible for torture, it binds us ever more closely to unpopular and repressive states in the Middle East, and it undermines the values we say we are fighting for.
None of that makes us any the safer.
