Ours is a culture in which we would consider it subversive, even unpatriotic, to even entertain such a thought. But the maverick British politician George Galloway—who openly admits admiration for Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussain—has "preapproved" Prime Minister Tony Blair's "assassination".
Asked by the magazine GQ (Gentleman's Quarterly) if he would justify the suicide-murder of Blair (with the tender proviso that only the prime minister would be killed in this putative assassination) Galloway, who was implicated in the oil-for-food scam like Natwar Singh, responds as follows:
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 people in Iraq as Blair did.
What do you think? Does freedom allow us to air statements like these in public? Or could this be construed as incitement to some lunatic groups look for targets? Are we being naive in thinking killers look for cues like these? Is it morally justified to approve of someone's killing because of his own role in the murder of others?
Or, like Mahatma Gandhi, do you think an eye for an eye will only make the whole world go blind?
Read what the brilliant Christopher Hitchens writes on the issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2142635/