We allow extraordinary rendition only because we cannot reconcile human rights with the real threat of terrorism

I suppose it would have been too much to expect that Binyam Mohamed would have staggered off his flight from Guantánamo Bay and thanked the British Government for securing his freedom. Or that he might have thanked the British taxpayer for writing a blank cheque for his housing, medical treatment and legal fees, despite his being an Ethiopian with no home or family here. Instead, this latest, lucrative asset to the human rights industry spoke of his “betrayal” by his “home” country - and sued.

Why did we make this man our problem? Seemingly for both diplomatic and humanitarian reasons. David Miliband told me this week that he felt it would have been harsh to abandon a man whose temporary residency expired while he was in detention - even though he left Britain for Afghanistan eight years ago. It is generous to see this man as our responsibility. But it is disingenuous of the Government to suggest, simultaneously, that its conduct has been whiter than white.

Mr Mohamed is an Ethiopian whose asylum application was refused in 1994 but was later granted leave to remain (a routine ploy to cover up our sham removals policy). His various accounts of why he went to Pakistan and Afghanistan are laughable. Yet he was detained without trial for seven years, an outrage to justice. And there seems little doubt that he was tortured. possibly with tacit British agreement. His claims that Britain was complicit in his rendition by the US to Morocco and Afghanistan were given force by yesterday's astonishing admission by the Defence Secretary that Britain had handed two terror suspects to the US for interrogation in Afghanistan in 2004. The Government has previously denied any part in extraordinary rendition. What other guilty secrets is it hiding?

The truth is that both government and human rights groups have taken liberties with reality. The only people to have profited are evil-doers and scroungers.

The government finds itself boxed into a very uncomfortable corner by the Human Rights Act, the human rights lobby and its duty to protect us from terrorism. The Human Rights Act has forced ministers to protect foreigners who hate us, at taxpayers' expense. So we cannot return anyone who might face torture, hostility or even substandard medicine. The human rights lobby has made a mockery of asylum law and the Geneva Convention, leaving us trapped in endless deportation battles. And as a consequence the Government has distorted fundamental principles of justice to protect national security.

Because those people might threaten our own citizens, we have suspended our 400-year-old rule of habeas corpus to incarcerate some without trial. One is Abu Qatada, who arrived here on a false passport in 1993 and whose deportation to Jordan was finally sanctioned by the law lords last week. Six countries have warned that he is dangerous. It would surely have been better to have sent him to Jordan for trial, than to have keep him interned. But he will continue to escape justice: he will fight for many more years on legal aid.

There have there been similar contortions over torture. For three years ministers have been busily winning assurances from countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Algeria that deportees will not be mistreated. Amnesty International regards these “memoranda of understanding” as worthless. The effective prohibition on deportation has driven ministers to a dishonest compromise.

This compromise does not bother some other countries that are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. France has been happily deporting terror suspects to Algeria for years. It does not regard the possibility of torture at one remove as seriously as it would regard torture carried out by its own operatives.

Some see that as pragmatic. Others believe that exposing someone to the risk of torture by others is as reprehensible as carrying it out. That is the official position of the British Government. But that implies four things. First, the memoranda of understanding cannot be used. Second, terror suspects cannot be removed, so should be freed from legal limbo and given UK citizenship. Third, even the faintest sniff of British complicity with American-sponsored torture is abhorrent and must be outed. Ministers cannot pretend to find torture wholly abhorrent while admitting to collusion in rendition.

These three things lead to a fourth. We must accept that we will henceforth rely on the Americans, the French and others to do the dirty work of saving some British lives. I say this because, although the argument is sometimes made that torture does not work, my conversations with security people over the years suggest otherwise. The House of Lords neatly pointed up this reality when it ruled that information that might have been provided under torture is inadmissable in court, but that governments can use that information if it could save lives.

The world is not as international law would like it to be. That is why President Obama said yesterday that he is keeping rendition as an option in the fight against terrorism. Wars are messy. Since 2001 there has been enormous confusion about whether to treat terror suspects as criminals, or as war combatants. Why can't ministers just admit that?

It is quite right that Binyam Mohamed should use the the law to challenge his abhorrent treatment. It is right that his allegations are being examined by the Attorney-General. It is wrong that we can never deport him if he turns out to pose a threat to national security.

I feel proud that Britain seeks to uphold freedom and fairness; I am also furious that, in pretending that all rights are equal, we risk obliterating some of our deepest values. When Britain is so vulnerable to terrorism, do we really want to undermine our national security?

Times Recommends

• Caesar & Cicero: Balls & Mandelson
• The anti-sex brigade are the worst
• Small act of charity won’t change the world