George Galloway, Britain's outspoken anti-war parliamentarian, has proclaimed that a suicide bomber would be morally justified in blowing up Prime Minister Tony Blair. In an interview for GQ, Galloway said such an attack "...would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq."
Despite the fact that nearly every public statement he makes argues vigorously to the contrary, I'll take what Galloway says seriously. In doing so, I quickly arrive at the conclusion that his reasoning is spectacularly flawed.
First, on the most basic level, it presupposes that murder for the purposes of revenge is itself "moral", a supposition that is disputed by the laws of nearly every state on the face of the earth. His position further requires that suicide bombing, specifically, be considered an acceptable form of revenge.
Second, his argument rests on the notion that Blair deliberately targeted innocent people for death (i.e., the sole purpose of the action was to kill innocent people) instead of ordering military actions that resulted in civilian casualties. Even if one goes so far as to agree with the morality of revenge killing, there could be no other moral justification for using a deliberate act of terrorism except to counter another deliberate act of terrorism.
That said, Galloway often refers to the Iraq War as an "illegal war" because it violates the Geneva Conventions. Those same Geneva Conventions expressly forbid acts of "terrorism". You can't have your crumpet and eat it, too. If the war is immoral because of the "terrorist" tactics of the coalition members, how could it possibly be moral to use those same tactics? One could conceivably argue that it would be smart, but certainly never moral.
Third, his justification for the immolation of the Prime Minister is entirely divorced from the effect such a drastic action is likely to have. An act of murder can be moral if it is committed in self-defense. The philosophical basis for this reasoning is that the act of killing the perpetrator protects the victim or intended future victims from harm. Such a thing could never happen in this case. If Tony Blair runs afoul of a few ounces of C-4, the war in Iraq won't stop.
Article comments
1 - Phillip Winn
THis boggles the mind! Thanks for the report.
2 - Arch Conservative
Galloway is the somewhat more legitimate, but not really, british Cindy Sheehan.
3 - Pete Blackwell
At least Sheehan has the legitimate grief of losing her son. I'd say Galloway is worse because his wingnuttery can't be explained like Cindy's can. I don't like her politics at all, but I can at least feel sorry for her and her loss.
4 - jamal
should we not consider the fact that Blair & Co has had no qualms in justifying the deaths of thousands in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention it’s other covert, supported or pending conflicts? And yes, there have been reports that innocents have been targeted aswell as predominantly civilian areas. So Blair is guilty of murder, not to mention supporting the illegal detention and torture of detainees, many who have never been charged.
Therefore, is it not fair to question whether “the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber, if there were no other casualties, be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?”
Galloway replies; “Yes it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it, but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable, and morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did.”
My opinion is that this is a fair and rational response to a question that should be asked. The only difference Tony Blair has to a suicide bomber, is that he possesses a permit to bury and a licence to kill. Therefore, is it not correct to argue that we must condemn either both or neither?
5 - NR Davis
This proves that unanimity is not present within the antiwar community.
Galloway is correct about this: "It would be entirely logical and explicable, and morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did."
Problem is, he leaves out the fact that what Blair did was IMMORAL. And if Blair's actions are not justified (which I would think would be Galloway's position), so would an assassination of Bush's poodle.
I don't agree with Blair and will cheer the day he and Cherie leave Downing St, but just as those killed in Iraq didn't deserve their fates, he does NOT deserve to be killed. It's irresponsible, IMO (though he has the right), for Galloway to use the public stage to say something so hideous, something that could give some wacko a dangerous idea.
6 - Cidel
Galloway does not claim it would be 'morally justified', but it would be 'morally equivalent'. I am surprised you overlooked something so obvious.