At a minimum, the CIA's seeming inability to keep its own secrets invites questions about whether the Bush administration is doing enough to shield its covert CIA operations from public scrutiny, even as the Justice Department focuses resources on a two-year investigation into whether someone in the administration broke the law by disclosing to reporters the identity of clandestine CIA operative Valerie Plame.
The article comes across like this:
We here at the Chicago Tribune were able uncover the names of THOUSANDS of CIA employees, almost all of whom were not working covertly! Is the Bush administration doing enough to shield overt CIA employees and extremely sloppy covert ones from discovery?
Is this a jab at journalists? Yup. Why? Their reporting is lazy, sensationalist, and uninformed, which is quite typical of journalism these days and, in my opinion, always has been.
The article puts up some big numbers, but lest we forget a few things:
- The CIA is a BIG organization - it needs support personnel, etc. and they are not likely to ALL be undercover. Maintaining cover on accountants and receptionists would certainly be a big waste of resources.
- Most CIA positions are not undercover, including most analysts
The article admits a lot of this halfway down: "Not all of the 2,653 employees whose names were produced by the Tribune search are supposed to be working under cover. More than 160 are intelligence analysts, an occupation that is not considered a covert position, and senior CIA executives such as Tenet are included on the list."
So, in other words, the Tribune puts up a big number that is supposed to be shocking and then, after most people stop reading, admits it's not really that big a deal. The article does state, however:
"But an undisclosed number of those on the list--the CIA would not say how many--are covert employees, and some are known to hold jobs that could make them terrorist targets."
There must be at least one - given the example at the top of the article - but no one says how many. The discovery that 26 people are working at Camp Peary (AKA - "The Farm" of "The Recruit" fame) is equally unimpressive, as SOMEONE must work there for support staff, and the 26 individuals discovered are likely to be support staff, not trainers. The 17 aircraft aren't particularly interesting, either, as the CIA likely operates many aircraft openly. Big organizations like the CIA cannot maintain cover on EVERYTHING, nor do they try to, as this report implies
I'm of the opinion that this article boils down to the following:
- The Chicago Tribune tooting its own horn - A cheap jab at Bush, which seems to represent "objective" journalism these days - Sensationalist journalism - they put up big numbers, but those numbers are unlikely to actually mean anything
Many have jokingly said, "move along, nothing to see here". To be honest, I think those statements are accurate.
You're correct that flying lessons and equipment for 19 would not reach that sum, however, you've failed to include:
Living expenses - most of them did not hold any sort of job Flights to and from the U.S. The purchase of the tickets themselves on 9/11 The purchase of tickets on multiple cross-country "practice" flights The fact that most of these flights were first class, significantly increasing cost.
While tracking money that goes through conventional means is difficult, tracking money distributed by Hawala is much more so. Trying to really outlaw it has had only mixed success. The U.S. has had a lot of success in drying up tens of millions of dollars in known terrorist funding, but the frightening fact remains that 9/11 cost about $500,000 to plan and carry out. While the funding for 9/11 largely didn't depend on Hawala, it still remains an effective and difficult to trace method of doing business. The attack on the U.S.S. Cole likely cost much less than 9/11, not to mention low-cost, low-level domestic eco-terrorism operations (ALF, et. al.). Drying up the funding is great and important, but it's like playing whack-a-mole at best.
I find it difficult to believe some of the comments here...
How many people here have actually been to a hospital overseas, where the odds of someone speaking your language well enough for you to understand are quite slim, or perhaps in a country where your mastery of the language is questionable at best? I have, and let me tell you - it's no fun. The usual jumpiness that accompanies any trip to the hospital is magnified about 10 fold. I would have loved to have access to a device like this one. It's not perfect, but it really would've put my mind at ease, which would have helped the whole process move along more smoothly.
1. If you're not in Utah, don't worry. This isn't going to affect you. So pipe down already and focus on preventing it in your own backyard.
2. If you are in Utah, don't worry. I'm in Utah now, and guess one of the two will happen:
a. It won't pass the Senate, as legislative sessions here are remarkably short anyways (just a bill to get a little attention). It will simply die with time.
b. If it does pass the Senate, my money is on a "pocket" veto, pretty much just ignoring the bill. The Utah senate this year is farily tied up as it is.
In any case, here's the text for the bill and the ammendment for those interested. It'd be nice if the submitters included this information when they sent in an article on pending legislation.
So long as there are cats, dogs, high school, bad poetry, and other substitutes for children and real lives, there will be blogs. You can bet your cat nip, chew toy, cheap digital camera, and suicide letter drafts on it.
With the KH-11's appearence in 1977, the CCD made a great leap forward in immediate intelligence gathering for the last 13 years or so of the Cold War - crucial years by anyone's standard.
The CCD wasn't the only imaging technology to be sure, but it made big contributions.
I mean, look at Jack Bauer! He can get anywhere in L.A. in less than 15 minutes, all while carrying out complex functions on his super cell phone and running over countless terrorists!
This invention really contributed to keeping the Cold War from heating up - reconnaissance satellites equipped with this technology were very useful to ensuring all sides kept their ends of the bargain during various arms control treaties. Not to mention their usefulness in charting maps and letting us all see from a new perspective.
It's kind of funny when you think about it, but this little invention has broadened our understanding of the entire universe while helping prevent us from blowing each other up down here on earth at the same time. You just can't say that about many things. Great work, gentlemen. Great work.
There have been a lot of projections on when we'll finally run out of petroleum, how about the various materials used to provide nuclear power? How much longer will it last?
You fail to consider that the US simply stating, "no, don't worry, we have more and better weapons," with only a wink and a nod would, probably, not be taken seriously by anyone, least of all in a political campaign. Stating we know something begs the question of how we know it. You obviously haven't thought this out.
You failed to mention the human assets whose lives are at risk and the problem with burning a human asset - it makes it very difficult to recruit more in the future. But hey, who needs HUMINT, right?
Forgive me if I don't take you at all seriously. Post some sources.
The first example was anecdotal and, therefore, fairly weak.
That said, an author of such a book with a Top Secret clearence and a need to know about the Rosenburg case could easily have clearance to the files and the data without a knowledge of the actual source. The author easily could've argued for declassification when he filed the book for approval with the Bureau, only to find out that he was later unable to use it.
As to this:
How hard would this have been: "Intelligence sources confirm that there is no significant missle gap between the United States and the Soviet Union, and in fact, the United States has much more capability than the Soviet Union." What "programs" are risked by this statement? None. You're just blaming this on the Kennedy campaign when it's pretty obvious than the intelligence community conspired to sell the "story" of the missle gap so that weapons manufacturers could make shitloads of money. Dissenters were threatened. Read the public statements of military officials (who definitely knew better) at the time.
Your evidence? You're making some interesting claims here, and ask me to study up on it (hint: I have, intelligence and security studies are an academic focus of mine).
As most conspiracy theorists, you blame everything on the defense industry. Sure, it has something to do with it, but you're ignoring the obvious other issues:
Different intelligence agencies make different estimates for different reasons.
Military defense agencies, like all military branches, apply "worst-case scenario" logic. Given their mission, this is only logical - the military always has and always should plan for the worst.
CIA analysts generally provide more accurate and reserved estimates (note: generally, they've certainly been wrong)
Now, moving on, why would stating we know how many missiles and bombers the Russians had caued a problem? It reveals both sources and methods for overhead observation - in this case, the U2, a still classified program made extremely sensitive due to the well-documented incident involving Gary Powers - and Soviet agents who knew the actual capability of missiles beyond what photographic imaging experts could bean count. These agents included Colonel Oleg V. Penkovsky (who would captured in 1962 and executed in the following year), English access agent Greville Wynne, and Soviet Lieutenant Colonel Pyotr Popov. (please see Richard Helms, "A Look Over My Shoulder", chapter 20 for further information).
I hate to burst your bubble, but loose lips do sink ships. Look no further than Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen for more recent examples. Brush up on your history while you're at it.
As a humorous aside, the confirmation image text is "knolls"... I thought there was only one grassy knoll?
It's been suggested before, but it's not just the agent who is the target of retribution - the agents extended family, children, etc. can be the subject of retribution.
And there remains the problem of methods and facilities, some of which have not changed and remain classified. It would be very expensive to be forced to change these every few years.
This is a problem with few easy answers.
If I walk into a area where classified information is held or processed with a cell phone, PDA, or iPod I get in trouble.
If a senator - or just about anyone, actually - leaks information to the press, no problem! They're a brave whistleblower! Nevermind that people's lives are on the line or that they've broken the law.
The press has little stake in national security, just in scooping each other and selling papers. If programs like, say, new secret stealth satellites to replace our easily detectable ones make the news, all the better! Hooray! Who cares if our enemies now can predict when they're being observed and cover up projects that could cause great harm to our security. It's their right to know!
Anyone who has held a security clearence can tell you - the government over-classifies. From my brief stint with a security clearence, I can honestly say I didn't learn anything from the documents I viewed that one couldn't reach by common sense or looking around on the internet.
While I think most will agree that classification is important to basic security - protecting sources and methods saves lives - there is little doubt that the US government uses it too much and always has. There is always a fear that even a slight mention in a report or stating information that we shouldn't know and only know through a secret source or method will blow the program and potentially waste millions or, worse, put someone's life in danger.
Most of the time this is unwarranted and, in the case of these specific documents, one has to wonder a great deal about it. That said, from time to time, it's absolutely necessary. (Following is an anecdote from a professor I had who worked for Senate Intelligence Committe for a while and, yes, was a Democrat) In the late 1970's, an FBI author of a book on the Rosenburg incident, for example, was angered by what he believed to be censorship regarding important information on the case. After going through the motions to allow him to print that part what he wanted, he found the reason - the information he wanted to print came from a source who, after more than 30 years, was still reporting from the USSR. Putting it in his book would have, without doubt, led to his death.
The "missile gap" of the late 50's - early 60's is another example - it existed only in public perception, and this had been confirmed by secret intelligence programs. But, rather than divulge this information and risk intelligence-gathering the programs, Kennedy was allowed to use it as a political plank.
Don't get me wrong - the government absolutely over classifies data, something I know perfectly well from experience. But, from time to time, it has been extremely important to keep what we know under wraps.
The author states: In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists
Perhaps I'm the only one, but to me the author seems to imply that this is a new phenomena. Hardly.
Propaganda operations are common, particularly in other-than-war operations where winning public approval/disapproval for whatever policy, leader, or nation is important.
They've been used by and against the US to great effect - the movie JFK, for example, was based off a book by Jim Garrison. Most of Garrison's findings in his book are the result of Soviet propaganda about CIA involvement in the Kennedy assassination. The US used propaganda extensively in its WWII operations to encourage the enemy to surrender, and the Soviets used it against the US to try to break the back of the Marshal plan and move communist parties into power in France and Italy. It encouraged many Iraqi soldiers to surrender rather than fight in 1991, greatly reducing the number of casualties on both sides.
Information is powerful and can greatly change perceptions or, at least, cause some confusion. It is a legitimate weapon - one which can often acheive its objectives without shedding blood. To set it aside is foolhardy.
That said, it must be used carefully. Blowback must be avoided, and more must be done to prevent that. It must be used with restraint - something that certainly has not always happened.
To say, "well, if we play nice, everyone else will" is foolishness. I'm not going to defend every action of the present or any previous administration, as there is a great deal to disagree with on all sides, but the/. consensus is to throw propaganda out completely.
The simple fact is that the enemy's talking and doing the same thing. Our silence - not even our adopting the stance the enemy wants us to adopt and becoming perfect global citizens, a utopian prospect at best - will shut him up. In a world where one of our greatest threats comes in the form of ideology rather than solid weapons, we should be ready to fire back and blunt that ideology through non-violent means. If we grease a palm or two on the way, so be it.
The last thing I want is for my computer to go crazy and burn my wife's fur coats (well, if we could afford such things), destroy all the meat in my fridge, "liberate" my pets, and spray paint "animal killer" all over my house as it distributes comics about how all the parents in the neighborhood are evil animal slaying people. It'd be almost as bad as putting XP on my Mac...
Who on earth would want one of these PETA drives? Or PETA taking a bite out of your computer (assuming your computer is made only of vegetable material, of course)?
By simply failing to keep up with growing demand (their preferred tactic at the moment, it would seem), OPEC can slowly ratchet up the price without creating a huge shock in oil prices. If anyone's creating a spike, it's those investing in oil futures.
The refineries will all run dry one day, and it makes sense for OPEC to increase the revenue as much as possible while the oil is still there.
(Hoping the above makes sense... it's late, and my contacts aren't in)
I understand the idea behind marginal returns, the question is what has caused the decrease in production in this specific case.
OPEC countries in particular have limited production in recent years in an effort to drive up the prices and extract as much money as possible from oil by limiting the supply to a trickle over a long period of time or because the oil fields are actually beginning to run dry in, say, Saudi Arabia.
The action is understandable from the view point of many countries in the Middle East that do not have other resources - it makes sense to get as much money out of what they have before it runs out.
I understand your argument entirely - the question is whether this is an artificial slow down or one due to choice or one due to necessity.
Slashdot Mirror
At a minimum, the CIA's seeming inability to keep its own secrets invites questions about whether the Bush administration is doing enough to shield its covert CIA operations from public scrutiny, even as the Justice Department focuses resources on a two-year investigation into whether someone in the administration broke the law by disclosing to reporters the identity of clandestine CIA operative Valerie Plame.
The article comes across like this:
We here at the Chicago Tribune were able uncover the names of THOUSANDS of CIA employees, almost all of whom were not working covertly! Is the Bush administration doing enough to shield overt CIA employees and extremely sloppy covert ones from discovery?
Is this a jab at journalists? Yup. Why? Their reporting is lazy, sensationalist, and uninformed, which is quite typical of journalism these days and, in my opinion, always has been.
The article puts up some big numbers, but lest we forget a few things:
- The CIA is a BIG organization - it needs support personnel, etc. and they are not likely to ALL be undercover. Maintaining cover on accountants and receptionists would certainly be a big waste of resources.
- Most CIA positions are not undercover, including most analysts
The article admits a lot of this halfway down: "Not all of the 2,653 employees whose names were produced by the Tribune search are supposed to be working under cover. More than 160 are intelligence analysts, an occupation that is not considered a covert position, and senior CIA executives such as Tenet are included on the list."
So, in other words, the Tribune puts up a big number that is supposed to be shocking and then, after most people stop reading, admits it's not really that big a deal. The article does state, however:
"But an undisclosed number of those on the list--the CIA would not say how many--are covert employees, and some are known to hold jobs that could make them terrorist targets."
There must be at least one - given the example at the top of the article - but no one says how many. The discovery that 26 people are working at Camp Peary (AKA - "The Farm" of "The Recruit" fame) is equally unimpressive, as SOMEONE must work there for support staff, and the 26 individuals discovered are likely to be support staff, not trainers. The 17 aircraft aren't particularly interesting, either, as the CIA likely operates many aircraft openly. Big organizations like the CIA cannot maintain cover on EVERYTHING, nor do they try to, as this report implies
I'm of the opinion that this article boils down to the following:
- The Chicago Tribune tooting its own horn
- A cheap jab at Bush, which seems to represent "objective" journalism these days
- Sensationalist journalism - they put up big numbers, but those numbers are unlikely to actually mean anything
Many have jokingly said, "move along, nothing to see here". To be honest, I think those statements are accurate.
No problem at all, happens all the time, glad I could clarify!
You're correct that flying lessons and equipment for 19 would not reach that sum, however, you've failed to include:
t es.pdf9/11 report, pg. 499, note 131. The source on this information is actually the planner of the attacks himself, KSM.
Living expenses - most of them did not hold any sort of job
Flights to and from the U.S.
The purchase of the tickets themselves on 9/11
The purchase of tickets on multiple cross-country "practice" flights
The fact that most of these flights were first class, significantly increasing cost.
Also, please see the http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_No
While tracking money that goes through conventional means is difficult, tracking money distributed by Hawala is much more so. Trying to really outlaw it has had only mixed success. The U.S. has had a lot of success in drying up tens of millions of dollars in known terrorist funding, but the frightening fact remains that 9/11 cost about $500,000 to plan and carry out. While the funding for 9/11 largely didn't depend on Hawala, it still remains an effective and difficult to trace method of doing business. The attack on the U.S.S. Cole likely cost much less than 9/11, not to mention low-cost, low-level domestic eco-terrorism operations (ALF, et. al.). Drying up the funding is great and important, but it's like playing whack-a-mole at best.
I kid, I kid...
The media's job in two steps:
1) Create false expectations
2) Pounce on those who fail to live up to its created expectations
I guess Apple's just getting what governments have enjoyed for all these years...
I find it difficult to believe some of the comments here...
How many people here have actually been to a hospital overseas, where the odds of someone speaking your language well enough for you to understand are quite slim, or perhaps in a country where your mastery of the language is questionable at best? I have, and let me tell you - it's no fun. The usual jumpiness that accompanies any trip to the hospital is magnified about 10 fold. I would have loved to have access to a device like this one. It's not perfect, but it really would've put my mind at ease, which would have helped the whole process move along more smoothly.
Thanks for the info! Would explain the lack of a senate sponsor on the bill.
It's dead in the water, no hope for it.
2. If you are in Utah, don't worry. I'm in Utah now, and guess one of the two will happen:
a. It won't pass the Senate, as legislative sessions here are remarkably short anyways (just a bill to get a little attention). It will simply die with time.
b. If it does pass the Senate, my money is on a "pocket" veto, pretty much just ignoring the bill. The Utah senate this year is farily tied up as it is.
In any case, here's the text for the bill and the ammendment for those interested. It'd be nice if the submitters included this information when they sent in an article on pending legislation.
So long as there are cats, dogs, high school, bad poetry, and other substitutes for children and real lives, there will be blogs. You can bet your cat nip, chew toy, cheap digital camera, and suicide letter drafts on it.
With the KH-11's appearence in 1977, the CCD made a great leap forward in immediate intelligence gathering for the last 13 years or so of the Cold War - crucial years by anyone's standard.
The CCD wasn't the only imaging technology to be sure, but it made big contributions.
Thanks for your comment!
I mean, look at Jack Bauer! He can get anywhere in L.A. in less than 15 minutes, all while carrying out complex functions on his super cell phone and running over countless terrorists!
This invention really contributed to keeping the Cold War from heating up - reconnaissance satellites equipped with this technology were very useful to ensuring all sides kept their ends of the bargain during various arms control treaties. Not to mention their usefulness in charting maps and letting us all see from a new perspective.
It's kind of funny when you think about it, but this little invention has broadened our understanding of the entire universe while helping prevent us from blowing each other up down here on earth at the same time. You just can't say that about many things. Great work, gentlemen. Great work.
There have been a lot of projections on when we'll finally run out of petroleum, how about the various materials used to provide nuclear power? How much longer will it last?
Yet provide none yourself.
You fail to consider that the US simply stating, "no, don't worry, we have more and better weapons," with only a wink and a nod would, probably, not be taken seriously by anyone, least of all in a political campaign. Stating we know something begs the question of how we know it. You obviously haven't thought this out.
You failed to mention the human assets whose lives are at risk and the problem with burning a human asset - it makes it very difficult to recruit more in the future. But hey, who needs HUMINT, right?
Forgive me if I don't take you at all seriously. Post some sources.
That said, an author of such a book with a Top Secret clearence and a need to know about the Rosenburg case could easily have clearance to the files and the data without a knowledge of the actual source. The author easily could've argued for declassification when he filed the book for approval with the Bureau, only to find out that he was later unable to use it.
As to this:
How hard would this have been: "Intelligence sources confirm that there is no significant missle gap between the United States and the Soviet Union, and in fact, the United States has much more capability than the Soviet Union." What "programs" are risked by this statement? None. You're just blaming this on the Kennedy campaign when it's pretty obvious than the intelligence community conspired to sell the "story" of the missle gap so that weapons manufacturers could make shitloads of money. Dissenters were threatened. Read the public statements of military officials (who definitely knew better) at the time.
Your evidence? You're making some interesting claims here, and ask me to study up on it (hint: I have, intelligence and security studies are an academic focus of mine).
As most conspiracy theorists, you blame everything on the defense industry. Sure, it has something to do with it, but you're ignoring the obvious other issues:
Now, moving on, why would stating we know how many missiles and bombers the Russians had caued a problem? It reveals both sources and methods for overhead observation - in this case, the U2, a still classified program made extremely sensitive due to the well-documented incident involving Gary Powers - and Soviet agents who knew the actual capability of missiles beyond what photographic imaging experts could bean count. These agents included Colonel Oleg V. Penkovsky (who would captured in 1962 and executed in the following year), English access agent Greville Wynne, and Soviet Lieutenant Colonel Pyotr Popov. (please see Richard Helms, "A Look Over My Shoulder", chapter 20 for further information).
I hate to burst your bubble, but loose lips do sink ships. Look no further than Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen for more recent examples. Brush up on your history while you're at it.
As a humorous aside, the confirmation image text is "knolls"... I thought there was only one grassy knoll?
It's been suggested before, but it's not just the agent who is the target of retribution - the agents extended family, children, etc. can be the subject of retribution. And there remains the problem of methods and facilities, some of which have not changed and remain classified. It would be very expensive to be forced to change these every few years. This is a problem with few easy answers.
So, by your logic, committing one mistake requires us to commit another for the sake of consistency?
If I walk into a area where classified information is held or processed with a cell phone, PDA, or iPod I get in trouble.
If a senator - or just about anyone, actually - leaks information to the press, no problem! They're a brave whistleblower! Nevermind that people's lives are on the line or that they've broken the law.
The press has little stake in national security, just in scooping each other and selling papers. If programs like, say, new secret stealth satellites to replace our easily detectable ones make the news, all the better! Hooray! Who cares if our enemies now can predict when they're being observed and cover up projects that could cause great harm to our security. It's their right to know!
Anyone who has held a security clearence can tell you - the government over-classifies. From my brief stint with a security clearence, I can honestly say I didn't learn anything from the documents I viewed that one couldn't reach by common sense or looking around on the internet.
While I think most will agree that classification is important to basic security - protecting sources and methods saves lives - there is little doubt that the US government uses it too much and always has. There is always a fear that even a slight mention in a report or stating information that we shouldn't know and only know through a secret source or method will blow the program and potentially waste millions or, worse, put someone's life in danger.
Most of the time this is unwarranted and, in the case of these specific documents, one has to wonder a great deal about it. That said, from time to time, it's absolutely necessary. (Following is an anecdote from a professor I had who worked for Senate Intelligence Committe for a while and, yes, was a Democrat) In the late 1970's, an FBI author of a book on the Rosenburg incident, for example, was angered by what he believed to be censorship regarding important information on the case. After going through the motions to allow him to print that part what he wanted, he found the reason - the information he wanted to print came from a source who, after more than 30 years, was still reporting from the USSR. Putting it in his book would have, without doubt, led to his death.
The "missile gap" of the late 50's - early 60's is another example - it existed only in public perception, and this had been confirmed by secret intelligence programs. But, rather than divulge this information and risk intelligence-gathering the programs, Kennedy was allowed to use it as a political plank.
Don't get me wrong - the government absolutely over classifies data, something I know perfectly well from experience. But, from time to time, it has been extremely important to keep what we know under wraps.
The author states: In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists
Perhaps I'm the only one, but to me the author seems to imply that this is a new phenomena. Hardly.
Propaganda operations are common, particularly in other-than-war operations where winning public approval/disapproval for whatever policy, leader, or nation is important.
They've been used by and against the US to great effect - the movie JFK, for example, was based off a book by Jim Garrison. Most of Garrison's findings in his book are the result of Soviet propaganda about CIA involvement in the Kennedy assassination. The US used propaganda extensively in its WWII operations to encourage the enemy to surrender, and the Soviets used it against the US to try to break the back of the Marshal plan and move communist parties into power in France and Italy. It encouraged many Iraqi soldiers to surrender rather than fight in 1991, greatly reducing the number of casualties on both sides.
Information is powerful and can greatly change perceptions or, at least, cause some confusion. It is a legitimate weapon - one which can often acheive its objectives without shedding blood. To set it aside is foolhardy.
That said, it must be used carefully. Blowback must be avoided, and more must be done to prevent that. It must be used with restraint - something that certainly has not always happened.
To say, "well, if we play nice, everyone else will" is foolishness. I'm not going to defend every action of the present or any previous administration, as there is a great deal to disagree with on all sides, but the /. consensus is to throw propaganda out completely.
The simple fact is that the enemy's talking and doing the same thing. Our silence - not even our adopting the stance the enemy wants us to adopt and becoming perfect global citizens, a utopian prospect at best - will shut him up. In a world where one of our greatest threats comes in the form of ideology rather than solid weapons, we should be ready to fire back and blunt that ideology through non-violent means. If we grease a palm or two on the way, so be it.
The last thing I want is for my computer to go crazy and burn my wife's fur coats (well, if we could afford such things), destroy all the meat in my fridge, "liberate" my pets, and spray paint "animal killer" all over my house as it distributes comics about how all the parents in the neighborhood are evil animal slaying people. It'd be almost as bad as putting XP on my Mac...
Who on earth would want one of these PETA drives? Or PETA taking a bite out of your computer (assuming your computer is made only of vegetable material, of course)?
Perhaps this is not a "spike".
By simply failing to keep up with growing demand (their preferred tactic at the moment, it would seem), OPEC can slowly ratchet up the price without creating a huge shock in oil prices. If anyone's creating a spike, it's those investing in oil futures.
The refineries will all run dry one day, and it makes sense for OPEC to increase the revenue as much as possible while the oil is still there.
(Hoping the above makes sense... it's late, and my contacts aren't in)
I understand the idea behind marginal returns, the question is what has caused the decrease in production in this specific case.
OPEC countries in particular have limited production in recent years in an effort to drive up the prices and extract as much money as possible from oil by limiting the supply to a trickle over a long period of time or because the oil fields are actually beginning to run dry in, say, Saudi Arabia.
The action is understandable from the view point of many countries in the Middle East that do not have other resources - it makes sense to get as much money out of what they have before it runs out.
I understand your argument entirely - the question is whether this is an artificial slow down or one due to choice or one due to necessity.