by STUART WHEELER

Last updated at 21:16 09 June 2007

You 'know' a man is a terrorist but cannot prove it. What do you do?

If you are President Bush, you have the CIA pluck him off the streets, deny him access to anyone and fly him to Egypt, Syria or Jordan to be tortured. This is known as extraordinary rendition.

You might have thought torture happened only in the barbaric Middle Ages. But as renditions expert Stephen Grey and human rights organisation Amnesty have recently pointed out, it is happening right now with the full approval of a supposedly civilised nation: the United States.

The US has also sanctioned the shackling of prisoners’ limbs, the threat of dog attacks and the prolonged maintenance of stress positions or repetitive exercises while attacking China, Eritrea, Burma, Iran and Libya for carrying out

those same abuses.

Here is what happened to Maher Arar, a Muslim with dual Canadian-Syrian nationality who had lived in Canada for 15 years.

Changing planes in New York in 2002 he was arrested, wrongly accused of belonging to Al Qaeda, sent in chains to Jordan and driven to Syria.

He spent ten months in a cell measuring 3ft by 6ft where he was repeatedly beaten on the back, buttocks and feet with a two-inch thick electric cable.

Finally released and cleared of all charges, he sued the US government – and lost.

It seems so obvious that torture is despicable that I am always surprised whenever I am asked why I feel so strongly about it.

When I used to kneel down at night and say my prayers – only as a child I am afraid – my first request to the Almighty was to spare me pain. I have never suffered anything that compares to torture and shall probably never be tortured.

But my concern is for those who are – which is why I have decided to put my money where my mouth is.

In early 2001, it was reported that I was giving £5million to the Conservative party. Although I still give money to the party, in the last year I have donated considerably more to organisations concerned with campaigning against torture – including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and The Medical Foundation For The Care Of Victims Of Torture.

I also helped part-finance Tory MP Andrew Tyrie’s all-party parliamentary commission investigating extraordinary rendition.

Set up in late 2005, one of its first achievements was to reveal how Britain may have been complicit in the rendition of two British residents at Guantanamo, Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil al-Banna. Last year I said I would provide £25,000 to the committee.

Also, I have partly financed Rendition, a feature film out later this year which illustrates just what the CIA can do.

Elsewhere in the world there are so many examples of torture it is difficult to know where to begin. In 2002, two men were boiled to death in Jaslyk prison in Uzbekistan. When the body of one was returned to his family it was covered in burns with the fingernails missing.

Meanwhile, in Egypt, common methods range from brutal beatings to electric shock treatment to dousing in water.

In Sierra Leone civilians’ hands and feet are sometimes cut off, while in Uganda methods include suspension from the ceiling while enduring ‘kandoya’ (tying hands and feet behind the victim) or a particularly brutal form of torture known as ‘Liverpool’ – in which a victim is forced to lie face up, mouth open, under a flowing water spigot.

These horrific abuses take place mostly in undemocratic nations. But by endorsing extraordinary rendition America is reducing itself to similar unacceptable levels of maltreatment.

I am not anti-American: far from it. But on this one issue the record of the Bush administration is appalling. And we know why torture happens – almost always the justification is national security.

But does it work? One of the most notorious examples was by the French in the war in Algeria. General Massu, who at the time described its use as a cruel necessity, later changed his mind and said the French could have got on perfectly well without it.

A policy of torture has one obvious and crucial disadvantage. It creates hatred and tremendous desire for revenge.

What makes apparently normal individuals willing to torture or abuse others? Adolf Eichmann, who personally arranged the transport of four million Jews to the death camps, said at his trial, "I was only following orders".

So 'authority' might be a key factor. But there are others. It helps if we can think of the victims as mere cattle, subhuman, not like us.

That is how US troops, and at least some British troops, thought, and probably still do, of Iraqi prisoners.

Who is responsible? Obviously the torturers cannot escape blame but the chief responsibility should, in my view, go much higher – to Rumsfeld, Cheney and, yes, most of all, to Bush.

Our own politicians here in Britain also bear a very heavy responsibility. If only they would speak out, not in words carefully chosen to avoid giving offence, but with obvious horror and emotion, the torture might well stop.

We are talking of the worst type of man’s inhumanity to man and Blair, Cameron, Campbell and Salmond are, albeit indirectly, responsible by not speaking out.

I have discussed the issue briefly with David Cameron, who said he thought he had come out clearly in favour of human rights, and other members of the Tory High Command.

But I have the impression that the shadow cabinet is split. Some think they should speak out strongly. Others consider the alliance with America so important that it would be wrong to risk offending the Americans.

I entirely disagree, partly because our General Election is very likely to be after the presidential election, so Bush will not be in power when/if the Conservatives form a government.

But even if politicians do not care about the suffering of the victims, can they not see that allowing the abuse creates huge numbers of terrorists?

Let us give credit where credit is due. The Prime Minister’s wife Cherie has come out very strongly against torture, at the risk of embarrassing No 10.

And you, the reader, have a responsibility to be heard as well. Will you write to your MP?

Are there circumstances in which the law should permit torture? Absolutely not.

Consider the following: there is a bomb which will destroy all life on earth, set to explode in five minutes. One man can stop it. Surely it must be legally justifiable to torture him?

This is the so-called ‘ticking bomb’ argument and I reject it.

What happened in Israel in the 1990s shows why. For many years Israel was the only country in the world to attempt to justify torture, on the basis of that argument.

But what happened in practice was torture became so widespread it became the normal procedure with Palestinian prisoners.

Eventually, in 1999, Israel's Supreme Court changed the rules– torture was no longer permissible under any circumstances. I have no doubt the United States will follow suit – in the end. I just hope the end arrives soon.