According to the New Zealand Herald, the Greenpeace organization is noticibly upset that a French foreign intelligence (DGSE) officer linked to the 1985 bombing of their ship in a New Zealand harbor has escaped again:

…executive director Bunny McDiarmid – a Rainbow Warrior crew member the day it was bombed – said it was not worthwhile pursuing extradition. She believed there was little hope the French secret agents who carried out the bombing would be brought to justice.

She said whoever did the bombing was getting away with murder.

“It seems that there are two types of terrorists these days; the state terrorists being the ones who get away with it.

The article goes on to explain that the majority of French probably would have supported the operation at the time and now do not feel strongly enough to support extradition of the bomber. Their concern is apparently how the attack was carried out, and perhaps how it was uncovered by the public, but not that it happened:

in France, the Rainbow Warrior bombing is viewed distantly, as an ill-starred act of state that happened more than 20 years ago, and not with the same lingering sense of outrage as in New Zealand, where it was the first act of foreign terrorism.

Some French people are angry at their Government’s arrogance and the coverup. But it would be fair to say that most have consigned the operation to history, given that France apologised, paid compensation and the President under whom it all happened, Francois Mitterrand, has been in his grave for more than a decade.

I found two interesting bits to this story in the New Zealand Herald. First, the definition of “traitor” as presented by Kit Bennetts, the man who performed surveillance that ultimately led to the arrest of Dr William Sutch:

“He was a loving husband. He was a great father. He was a great family man. His role in the social development of New Zealand was great. Many would say that would outweigh this silly little dabble with the Soviets, whereas I say he was involved in a full-on intelligence operation as an asset of the KGB. To me that outweighs the good he did.

“I honestly believe he never saw himself as a traitor. I don’t think he would have done anything to consciously harm New Zealand. The fact that he did is probably a product of his arrogance … and his belief that he perhaps knew better.”

And so he was charged with doing unconscious harm to New Zealand, although his intent was purely good? That sounds a bit odd to me.

Second, this story came up because a new book is being published by Bennetts that is causing some controversy:

[Former New Zealand defence analyst Jim Rolfe] said there would be some disquiet from the SIS that a retired officer had published a book, but he doubted if the service would do anything.

“They have been burned too often trying to stop secrets once they have been let out.”

Something tells me if the content was sensitive enough, they would actually stop the secret. But since this is a story about a man who was charged and acquitted thirty years ago, what secret could possibly be worth stopping?