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 scientist.

    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.

       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 good?
       Even the question is confusingly simplistic.

      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 more Paradise.
        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 agree.
         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.

      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 back.
         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' job.

          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

©2001 - 2004, VigilanceVoice.com, All rights reserved -  a ((HYYPE)) design

The Pledge Of Vigilance