This is not the same "french intelligence agency". Rainbow Warrior had to do with what is now DGSE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate-General_for_Externa.... In the current case, it is the DCRI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_centrale_du_renseigne... which is in action. One is under the responsability of the defense minister, the other under the interior minister

Indeed. More or less the DCRI would be equivalent to the FBI and the DGSE would be equivalent to a kind of CIA/NSA even if it is not completely true given that CIA is a civil agency. But what's important is that DCRI's competency is domestic intelligence and DGSE is for foreign intelligence.

Well, at risk of getting political I think the second Iraq war was a more counter productive military operation.

But, yes, from a New Zealand perspective, The Rainbow Warrior affair triggered an equally dramatic change in foreign policy.

Mistake? Are you saying they meant to give the boat a new coat of paint, and accidentally blew it up instead, killing a bystander in the process?

That would be an accident.

A mistake can be something that just turns out to be a bad idea. E.g. "we really need joins; using NoSQL was a mistake".

Mistake as in stupid decision.

It wasn't merely stupid, it was evil. They blew up a civilian vessel and killed a man.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it evil - death happened due a miscalculation, it was not intentional. I think intent matters if we call something evil.

Not enough. If something can predictably end in disaster and horrible things and someone does it anyway, that person is just as evil as if they had planned it from the beginning.

If someone throws rocks at oncoming cars, you can't claim innocence because "I didn't mean to kill a family in a car crash!" If you invade an oil-rich Middle Eastern country and cause half a million excess deaths, it's just as bad as if you personally murdered each and every one of them.

> you can't claim innocence

If you read very carefully, you'll notice that person you're replying to was delineating between evil and culpable.

Meta advice - there is no need to turn every discussion into one about Iraq war.

On the actual statement - I disagree 100%, but we're talking ethics, so rational arguments can't go very far :)

No, we don't say that drunks are evil when they get drunk and then drive their car over someone. We do still throw them in prison though.

We? You might not, but I certainly do.

Let me explain the problem here.

What you are doing is diluting the 'evil brand'. If you call a drunk driver evil, you have nothing left for the likes of Hitler and Pol Pot. What are they then - double evil?

It's a spectrum. It's possible to be 'slightly evil' or 'very evil', or - in the case of Hitler or Pol Pot - 'one of the most evil humans who ever lived'.

Do you consider legal systems which distinguish between degrees of culpability to be unethical?

Yep, the death was unfortunate (photographer goes back for his gear and doesn't come back). Still, a lot of us Kiwis are still angry at what happened afterwards (France plays hard ball and gets the agents on a French Atoll and then back to France, where they wrote books and moved up the ranks).

Yep - this I can certainly agree would make host country angry.

For a story that somewhat parallels what the French did (but a WHOLE different level) check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramil_Safarov

Another tragic case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitaly_Kaloyev -- he stabbed and killed the (Danish) flight controller responsible for a plane crash (in Switzerland) in which his children died; after his imprisonment ended early he returned home to North Ossetia be made deputy minister of housing.

This is different - " On 8 November 2007, Kaloyev was released from prison, because his mental condition was not sufficiently considered in the initial sentence." Russia did not promise to keep him in prison.

Not only the Kiwis. Quite a few Dutch people remember this clearly as well.

Callous disregard for human life is evil.

What term do you then reserve for intentional murder?

Blowing up a civilian vessel with people on board is murder.

How does that have anything to do with the currently discussed matter ? Seriously...

Because this is an agency that has blown up civilian vessels engaged in peaceful protests against their State. They've established a pretty bad track record in this area; as a result, I'd be a lot less ready to attribute charitable motives to their latest behaviour.

As it was previously said, the DCRI is not the agency responsible for the sinking of the rainbow warrior.