The deadly nature of deceit has led to the death of a leading weapons
of mass destruction scientist. Why, in our search for
Vigilance do we stumble over the bodies of Terrorists? Do
we create our own as we rush to save the world?
20, 2003—Ground Zero Plus 676
Stumbling Over Terrorism on the Road
Editor, New York City Combat Correspondent News
GROUND ZER0, New York, N.Y.--July 20,
2003-- The path to Vigilance is littered with many obstacles,
including the dead body of a leading weapons of mass destruction
Tony Blair with Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said
Kelly's apparent suicide was "an absolutely terrible tragedy"
Tony Blair, Britain's Prime
Minister and key ally to America during the recent Gulf War, was hit
by a surprise "nuclear attack" during his visit to Japan when news of
a leading British scientist, alleged to be the source for a BBC News
broadcast that the government had inserted false information into a
report about the immediate danger of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass
destruction, was found dead on a footpath in the woods near the scientist's Oxford home.
Apparently, the weapons of mass destruction
expert slit his wrists, taking his own life as a result of
investigative pressure that he helped "stuff" government documents
with false information about weapons threats that helped Britain
justify going to war with America in March in Iraq.
The BBC published their report in May, attacking
the validity of a September document released by the British
government that "exaggerated" the threat of WMD, and helped thrust
Britain into supporting the American-led invasion of Iraq.
The bombshell about Dr. David Kelly's suicide
reached Prime Minister Blair in Hakone, Japan, where he was having
talks with Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
Kelly had expressed concerns about Downing Street's
interpretation of intelligence in the dossier.
The 59-year-old former U.N. weapons inspector in
Iraq and senior adviser to the Ministry of Defense, was a "behind the
scenes" worker, unaccustomed to being caught in a global media
crossfire bent on politically crippling the current British government
and validating, if proven correct, the fraud exerted on the people of
Britain regarding their country's role in the Iraq war.
The lingering question: "Was Dr.
Kelly killed to keep him quiet, and not a victim of suicide?"
On the dark side of things, one can justify
any road taken to rid Saddam Hussein of his throne of power in Iraq.
He was a tyrant, a despot, and without question, a potential Hitler
capable of killing his own people in the tens of thousands to achieve
his goal of dominance over the world as he saw it.
Removing him as a despotic, cruel leader
who had the power to wage war upon all was never the question.
The question on the table, and the one clouding the death of Dr.
Kelly, is the righteousness of "good" in its quest to destroy "evil."
If one becomes the Beast of Terror to
kill the Beast of Terror, can one transform back into a Sentinel of
Vigilance once the Beast is dead? Or, by morphing into the Beast
to do battle at any cost, does that rob the Sentinel of Vigilance of
any rights to return back to the "righteous" state?
That seems to be the Dr. Jekyll and Mr.
Hyde dilemma. Can a state that violates the trust of
its people to serve a good end be good even if it was bad to be
Even the question is confusingly
justifies the means" - Nicolo Machiavelli
The famous words, "The end justifies the
means," were written a long time ago, in the 14th Century, by Nicolo
Machiavelli (1469-1527). Some say he was the first great
philosopher of the Renaissance, but certainly not the first to justify
the end by any means. That belongs to Cain, the first son
of Adam and Eve according to the Bible, who smashed his brother's head
with a rock so he would have no competition in the world for God's
grace. Jealousy and rage superseded brotherly love.
When God asked him what happened to his
brother, Cain lied. He said he "knows not." God punished
him by sending him to the Land of Nod, just east of Eden. No
The press is pushing to see if Dr.
Kelly fits into the "Able" category. Were the scientist's wrists
slit by some shady government assassin who wanted forever to seal the
lips of the man who is the prime suspect for stuffing information into
the government report about threatening WMD?
Right now, the sharks are feeding on
the scent of political blood.
Plus, instead of a suicide, the death
might become a homicide, adding fuel to the fire that the government
is "bad," and "evil," and "corrupt," and should be replaced
immediately with another government, which, more than likely, will not
evolve much above that which it replaces.
It is easy for me to turn my head and
think, "Well, what's a line or two of false information, if that was
the case, when the bigger picture of evil was at stake.
Certainly, if either the U.S. or the British ram-roded information to
win popular support, the freedom of a people from tyranny is well
worth that small infraction!"
But the moral termites may not
They may want purity in
purpose, or, at least pretend they do in an attempt to displace one
form of leadership for another form, not necessarily any less corrupt
than the one they hope to topple. Governments, by nature,
do justify their ends by almost all means. They just
hope they don't get caught.
Still, the cloud of "suicide"
versus "assassination" looms large on the horizon regarding Dr.
Kelly's very timely death.
await the proof of Iraq's WMDs and/or how Dr. Kelly met his timely
The BBC and news media were
nipping at his heels. He was the prime suspect for the "WMD Deep
Throat Falsification Data" intrigue. He would be,
without question, the key to toppling a regime were it proven he was
killed to muffle his Voice.
Maybe he just slit his wrists.
Until the final proof is on the
table, I'll give the edge to suicide, even though every bone in my
body aches to see one more example of the corruption of human nature
to do about anything to achieve its goals.
That's why I believe the Pledge
of Vigilance is a moral tool, not just a physical one.
In the end, it forces one to
think about what the great, great grandkids will think when they look
I think the "end justifies the
means" wasn't intended to serve the Children's Children's Children.
It was more to serve the immediate people seeking power. It was
their way to morally sanction their actions with little regard
ultimately to the impact upon multi-layered generations.
When we look back at time, we
are left pretty much with the moral issues of decisions. The
immediate threats and pressures are moot as we glance to the past, and
we see only the issue of "right" or "wrong" decisions, we don't see
the matrix of events leading up to them.
Right now, everyone is
trying to make "right" or "wrong" the decision to remove Saddam
Hussein. Ultimately, that will be our future generations'
I f we are
judged to have done 51 % Right Actions we may escape being the
However, I'm also sure they will look to see if we turned into the
Beast to become the Sentinel of Vigilance, and if we did, they will
hopefully be wary of the Cain legacy we left behind and do their best
to avoid it.
But, if ultimately we are
judged to have done at least 51 Percent of the right actions, and that
our mission in dealing with Terrorism was not driven by politics but
rather purpose, we may escape the wrappings of the Beast.
I hope this is the case.
July 19--Be A Sentinel of K-3 Vigilance
- 2004, VigilanceVoice.com, All rights reserved -