CIA drone program using REALLY loose targeting guidelines

[weemadando]

CIA Drones Kill Large Groups Without Knowing Who They Are
By Spencer Ackerman November 4, 2011 | 11:00 am

The expansion of the CIA’s undeclared drone war in the tribal areas of Pakistan required a big expansion of who can be marked for death. Once the standard for targeted killing was top-level leadership in al-Qaeda or one of its allies. That’s long gone, especially as the number of people targeted at once has grown.

This is the new standard, according to a blockbuster piece in the Wall Street Journal: “men believed to be militants associated with terrorist groups, but whose identities aren’t always known.” The CIA is now killing people without knowing who they are, on suspicion of association with terrorist groups. The article does not define the standards are for “suspicion” and “association.”

Strikes targeting those people — usually “groups” of such people — are called “signature” strikes. “The bulk of CIA’s drone strikes are signature strikes,” the Journal’s Adam Entous, Siobhan Gorman and Julian E. Barnes report.

And bulk really means bulk. The Journal reports that the growth in clusters of people targeted by the CIA has required the agency to tell its Pakistani counterparts about mass attacks. When the agency expects to kill 20 or more people at once, then it’s got to give the Pakistanis notice.

Determining who is a target not a question of intelligence collection. The cameras on the CIA fleet of Predators and Reapers work just fine. It’s a question of intelligence analysis — interpreting the imagery collected from the drones, and from the spies and spotters below, to understand who’s a terrorist and who, say, drops off the terrorists’ laundry. Admittedly, in a war with a shadowy enemy, it can be difficult to distinguish between the two.

Fundamentally, though, it’s a question of policy: whether it’s acceptable for the CIA to kill someone without truly knowing if he’s the bombsmith or the laundry guy.

The Journal reports that the CIA’s willingness to strike without such knowledge — sanctioned, in full, by President Barack Obama — is causing problems for the State Department and the military.

As we’ve written this week, the high volume of drone strikes in the Pakistani tribal areas contributes to Pakistani intransigence on another issue of huge importance to the U.S.: convincing Pakistan to deliver the insurgent groups it sponsors to peace talks aimed at ending the Afghanistan war. The drones don’t cause that intransigence. Pakistan’s leaders, after all, cooperate with the drones and exploit popular anti-American sentiment to shake down Washington. The strikes become cards for Pakistan to play, however cynically.

The State Department is sick of it. It fears the rise of really anti-American leadership in Pakistan, riding into power on a wave of outrage over the drones. The Journal reports that earlier this year, the State Department gained greater say over targeting. So did the military, which fears Pakistan cutting off the supply routes to Afghanistan that run through its territory.

The CIA is still in control. Not only has it beefed up its drone patrols to 14 “orbits,” each consisting of three Predators or Reapers, but it’s moved many of its drones out of Pakistan and onto Afghanistan bases. That’s a statement of unilateral control, even as it gives the Pakistanis a bit more insight into drone operations.

“It’s not like they took the car keys away from the CIA,” an anonymous senior official tells the Journal. “There are just more people in the car.”

And the basic question — Who should be targeted? — hasn’t changed. The default answer, to put it bluntly, is: Whomever the CIA can. Clive Stafford Smith, a human rights lawyer, points to a consequence: A young man named Tariq was killed in a drone strike with his 12-year old cousin, Waheed Khan, while driving their aunt home.

“Tariq was a good kid, and courageous,” Stafford Smith writes. “My warm hand recently touched his in friendship; yet, within three days, his would be cold in death, the rigor mortis inflicted by my government.”

As long as the CIA — now backed by the military and the State Department — has a free hand to wage the secret drone war in tribal Pakistan, it will continue to bottle up al-Qaida and its allies, degrading the threat they pose. They will also kill more Tariqs and Waheeds. And because the drone war remains a classified CIA program, the CIA will not have to account for its actions to anybody, least of all the U.S. or Pakistani publics.

If you want further anger/despondency after reading that, click through to the original page and check out the HPCA worthy comments section.

[Thanas]

Jesus christ.

Just when you think the USA has hit rock bottom, now this.

There are some changes outlined in the WSJ journal but they seem to be cosmetic in nature only.

Among the changes: The State Department won greater sway in strike decisions; Pakistani leaders got advance notice about more operations; and the CIA agreed to suspend operations when Pakistani officials visit the U.S.

The Pakistan drone debate already seems to be influencing thinking about the U.S. use of drones elsewhere in the world. In Yemen, the CIA used the pilotless aircraft in September to kill American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a suspected terrorist. But the White House has for now barred the CIA from attacking large groups of unidentified lower-level militants there.

The CIA concessions were detailed by high-level officials in a series of interviews with The Wall Street Journal. But in a measure of the discord, administration officials have different interpretations about the outcome of the White House review. While some cast the concessions as a "new phase" in which the CIA would weigh diplomacy more heavily in its activities, others said the impact was minimal and that the bar for vetting targets has been consistently high.

"Even if there are added considerations, the program—which still has strong support in Washington—remains as aggressive as ever," said a U.S. official.
[...]
The drone program over the past decade has moved from a technological oddity to a key element of U.S. national-security policy. The campaign has killed more than 1,500 suspected militants on Pakistani soil since Mr. Obama took office in 2009, according to government officials.

To some degree, the program has become a victim of its own success. Critics question whether aggressive tactics are necessary following the eradication of senior al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, including Osama bin Laden, killed in a helicopter raid by Navy Seals in May after drone and satellite surveillance of the compound where he was living.

Many officials at the Pentagon and State Department privately argued the CIA pays too little attention to the diplomatic costs of air strikes that kill large groups of low-level fighters. Such strikes inflame Pakistani public opinion. Observers point to the rising power in Pakistan of political figures like Imran Khan, who held large rallies to protest the drones and could challenge the current government.

All this comes at a time when the State Department is trying to enlist Pakistan's help in advancing peace talks with the Taliban, a key element of a White House drive to end the war in neighboring Afghanistan. Top officials of the CIA, Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council have been pulled into the debate. Among those voicing concerns was Gen. David Petraeus, who commanded the war in Afghanistan before becoming CIA director in September. A senior intelligence official said Gen. Petraeus voiced "caution against strikes on large groups of fighters."

Changing the handling of the drone program doesn't mean the CIA is pulling back. The agency in recent weeks has intensified strikes in Pakistan focusing on the militant Haqqani network, a group believed to be behind a series of attacks in Afghanistan. The Pentagon and State Department have backed those strikes as serving U.S. interests.

The debate in Washington was fueled by a particularly deadly drone strike on March 17. It came at a low point in U.S.-Pakistani relations, just a day after Pakistan agreed after weeks of U.S. pressure to release a CIA contractor who had killed two Pakistanis.

Infuriated Pakistani leaders put the death toll from the drone strike at more than 40, including innocent civilians. American officials say about 20 were killed, all militants.

The March 17 attack was a "signature" strike, one of two types used by the CIA, and the most controversial within the administration. Signature strikes target groups of men believed to be militants associated with terrorist groups, but whose identities aren't always known. The bulk of CIA's drone strikes are signature strikes.

The second type of drone strike, known as a "personality" strike, targets known terrorist leaders and has faced less internal scrutiny.

Signature strikes were first used under former President George W. Bush. His administration began arming unmanned aircraft to hunt al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks. As al Qaeda militants fled to Pakistan, the CIA began a secret drone program there, with quiet backing from Islamabad.

For the first years, U.S. officials used drones only to target known, top terror suspects. The drone strikes quickly became unpopular with the Pakistani public. In 2008, when Pakistani leaders bowed to public pressure and began to block U.S. requests for strikes, President Bush authorized a major expansion, allowing the CIA to conduct strikes, including signature strikes, without Pakistani permission.

Initially, the CIA was skeptical of the value of expending resources on lower-level operatives through signature strikes, a former senior intelligence official said. Military officials, however, favored the idea. The debate eventually would lead to the CIA and the military reversing their initial positions.

Mr. Obama was an early convert to drones. The CIA has had freedom to decide who to target and when to strike. The White House usually is notified immediately after signature strikes take place, not beforehand, a senior U.S. official said.

The program had some early skeptics, but their concerns gained little traction. Dennis Blair, Mr. Obama's first director of national intelligence, recommended that the CIA measure the program's effectiveness beyond numbers of dead militants, U.S. officials said. It didn't happen.

The CIA and the State Department had been at odds for months over the use of drones. Tensions flared with the arrival in Islamabad late last year of a new ambassador, Cameron Munter, who advocated more judicious use of signature strikes, senior officials said.

On at least two occasions, Leon Panetta, then the CIA director, ignored Mr. Munter's objections to planned strikes, a senior official said. One came just hours after Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, visited Islamabad.

State Department diplomats weren't alone in their concerns. Adm. Mike Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other military leaders, who initially favored more aggressive CIA methods, began to question that approach.

The debate erupted after the March 17 strike, when National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and others at the White House, taken aback by the number of casualties and Pakistan's sharp reaction, questioned whether the CIA should for large groups, at times, hold its fire. Officials asked what precautions were being taken to aim at highly valued targets, rather than foot soldiers.

"Donilon and others said, 'O.K., I got it; it's war and it's confusing. Are we doing everything we can to make sure we are focused on the target sets we want?'" said a participant in the discussions. "You can kill these foot soldiers all day, every day and you wouldn't change the course of the war."

A senior Obama administration official declined to comment on Mr. Donilon's closed-door discussions but said that he wasn't second-guessing the CIA's targeting methodology and pointed to his long-standing support for the program. The official said the White House wanted to use the drone program smartly to pick off al Qaeda leaders and the Haqqanis. "It's about keeping our eyes on the ball," the official said.

In the spring, military leaders increasingly found themselves on the phone with Mr. Panetta and his deputy urging restraint in drone attacks, particularly during periods when the U.S. was engaging in high-level diplomatic exchanges with Pakistan. "Whenever they got a shot [for a drone attack], they just took it, regardless of what else was happening in the world," a senior official said.

Mr. Panetta made his first concession in an April meeting with his Pakistani counterpart. He told Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha that the U.S. would tell the Pakistanis ahead of time about strikes expected to kill more than 20 militants, officials said.

The debate over the future of the drone program intensified after the death of Osama bin Laden the next month. Pakistani leaders were embarrassed that the U.S. carried out the operation in their country, undetected. They demanded an end to the signature drone strikes.

Mr. Donilon, the National Security Advisor, launched a broad review of Pakistan policy, including the drone program. Officials said the internal debate that ensued was the most serious since the signature strikes were expanded in 2008.

CIA officials defended the signature strikes by saying they frequently netted top terrorists, not just foot soldiers. Twice as many wanted terrorists have been killed in signature strikes than in personality strikes, a U.S. counterterrorism official said.

Adm. Mullen argued that the CIA needed to be more selective. Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates feared that the Pakistanis, if pushed too hard, would block the flow of supplies to troops in Afghanistan, officials said.

For Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has supported the CIA's strikes in the vast majority of cases, the biggest focus has been to make sure political ramifications are properly assessed to avoid a situation where the political opposition in Pakistan becomes so great that the country's current or future leaders decide to bar the drones outright.

Independent information about who the CIA kills in signature strikes in Pakistan is scarce. The agency tells U.S. and Pakistani officials that there have been very few civilian deaths—only 60 over the years. But some senior officials in both governments privately say they are skeptical that civilian deaths have been that low.

Some top officials in the White House meetings this summer argued for a broader reassessment. "The question is, 'Is it even worth doing now? We've got the key leadership in al Qaeda, what is it that we're there for now?" one of the officials recalled some advisers asking.

The White House review culminated in a Situation Room meeting with Mr. Obama in June in which he reaffirmed support for the program.

But changes were made. Mr. Obama instituted an appeals procedure to give the State Department more of a voice in deciding when and if to strike. If the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan objected to a strike, for example, the CIA director or his deputy would first try to talk through their differences with the ambassador. If the conflict was unresolved, the secretary of state would appeal directly to the CIA director. If they couldn't reach agreement, however, the CIA director retained the final say.

Since the changes were made, officials say internal tensions over the strikes have eased and agencies were acting more in concert with each other.

Though Mr. Petraeus voiced a preference for smaller drone strikes, officials said the agency has the leeway to carry out large-scale strikes and hasn't been formally directed to go after only higher-value targets and avoid foot soldiers. Since Mr. Petraeus's arrival at CIA, some strikes on larger groups have taken place, the senior intelligence official said.

To reduce the number of CIA strikes on Pakistani soil, the military moved more of its own drones into position on the Afghan side of the border with Pakistan, according to participants in the discussions. That makes it easier for the CIA to "hand off" suspected militants to the U.S. military once they cross into Afghanistan, rather than strike them on Pakistani soil, U.S. officials said.

U.S.-Pakistani relations remain troubled, but Islamabad recently expanded intelligence cooperation and has toned down its opposition to the drone strikes, both in public and private, officials said. Pakistani officials had sought advance notice, and greater say, over CIA strikes so they could try to mitigate the public backlash.

"It's not like they took the car keys away from the CIA," a senior official said. "There are just more people in the car."

Screw you, Obama. What a worthless slimebag you are.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The worrying point is that this means our main offensive weapon against terrorists is in the hands of people with no training in obeying international laws of war, who are not even legal combatants themselves.

[PeZook]

...and twenty years from now, when Pakistan inevitably radicalizes and moves away from the American spehere of influence, people will be flabbergasted why there are so many people there who fucking hate the west.

Because this campaign of murder with such loose ROE will never bite the US in the ass. Never.

[Skgoa]

"Twenty years from now"? PeZook, what you describe has happened for decades, now. It's the reason why the term "IED" became part of our vocabulary. It's the fucking reason why the eleventh day of september has any significance.
Terror attacks against the US and it's citizens will continue for as long as this is the reaction to these kinds of stories:

The worrying point is that this means our main offensive weapon against terrorists is in the hands of people with no training in obeying international laws of war, who are not even legal combatants themselves.

[PeZook]

"Twenty years from now"? PeZook, what you describe has happened for decades, now. It's the reason why the term "IED" became part of our vocabulary. It's the fucking reason why the eleventh day of september has any significance.
Terror attacks against the US and it's citizens will continue for as long as this is the reaction to these kinds of stories:

I meant Pakistan specifically. I am well aware that there are a lot of people outside (and plenty inside, too) of Pakistan who hate the US, dude.

[VarrusTheEthical]

I'm curious about two things after reading this.

First is how did the CIA sell these "signature" strikes to the Administration. How does the CIA and President think these attack ultimately serve US national security?

Second is, what criteria does the CIA use in deciding which groups get blasted and which don't? I mean other that "because they can". I would think even the CIA has internal guidelines when it comes to picking these targets.

Edit: After re-reading for the third time, it appears that the answer to question two is "there may be someone in that group that we might want dead, but we're not sure". Guess I missed that on the first read. I just hope that the answer to the first question is more nuanced than "more dead terrorists".

[mr friendly guy]

Brought to you by the CIA, the guys that gave us the Bay of Pigs debacle, terrorists Freedom fighters in China and a whole host of other goodies.

Can't we boycott America or something? Oh wait, that line only works on China. Carry on then.

But in all seriousness, this will in the long term just weaken US influence and will likely feed the Islamist propaganda machine. I query whether the US is getting bang for its buck, er I mean drone strike. But apparently according to the articles, political concerns don't really factor into the CIA decision making. Which is strange. I can understand the military not being able to factor political concerns, but the CIA is supposed to be an intelligence agency is it not?

[Serafina]

Second is, what criteria does the CIA use in deciding which groups get blasted and which don't? I mean other that "because they can". I would think even the CIA has internal guidelines when it comes to picking these targets.

Why would they need any other guideline other than "don't bomb targets that are bad for PR* too often"? Killing terrorists is after all well-supported by the US-population and considered patriotic. And there is plenty of legal precedent by now that says "you don't need to give a damn about international law as long as you accuse the other person of being a terrorist, regardless of proof".

*stuff like hospitals; plenty of children at one and such

[VarrusTheEthical]

Why would they need any other guideline other than "don't bomb targets that are bad for PR* too often"? Killing terrorists is after all well-supported by the US-population and considered patriotic. And there is plenty of legal precedent by now that says "you don't need to give a damn about international law as long as you accuse the other person of being a terrorist, regardless of proof".

*stuff like hospitals; plenty of children at one and such

I don't think that blowing up random groups of people is all that good for PR, to be honest.

In any case, my concern isn't so much the legality or PR, but what the CIA and the President hope that these "signature" strikes will accomplish. I guess my point is that there must be a reason, even if it's a stupid one, to be blasting large groups of people just on the off-chance that one of them is a Taliban or Al Qaeda member.

[Serafina]

I don't think that blowing up random groups of people is all that good for PR, to be honest.

In any case, my concern isn't so much the legality or PR, but what the CIA and the President hope that these "signature" strikes will accomplish. I guess my point is that there must be a reason, even if it's a stupid one, to be blasting large groups of people just on the off-chance that one of them is a Taliban or Al Qaeda member.

But of course you aren't killing "random groups of people", you are killing terrorists!
Which also answers your question what it is supposed to accomplish - it gives the impression that you are doing something, that you are "fighting the war against terror" better than Bush did etc.

[VarrusTheEthical]

But of course you aren't killing "random groups of people", you are killing terrorists!
Which also answers your question what it is supposed to accomplish - it gives the impression that you are doing something, that you are "fighting the war against terror" better than Bush did etc.

I do concede that your reason is plausible. However, I personally think that they (CIA and the Administration) believe these strikes are helping accomplish there goals in the Pakistan/Afghanistan theater. Namely, to get out of there while leaving a stable (ish) government in Afghanistan and a Taliban too battered to threaten said government.

Whether these strikes are actually doing that, or what the unintended consequences of these strikes will be in the future, are beyond me.

[Skgoa]

But how is that supposed to work, when for every one "terrorist" you kill, you turn his family and friends into fanatics who think their only way to stop you randomly sniping people is by killing enough of your citizens in a manner that is as abhorable as possible? What is the endgame, here? Either they all end up dead or you loose, pick your choice.
(And since they seem to be breeding faster than they die...)

[Serafina]

I do concede that your reason is plausible. However, I personally think that they (CIA and the Administration) believe these strikes are helping accomplish there goals in the Pakistan/Afghanistan theater. Namely, to get out of there while leaving a stable (ish) government in Afghanistan and a Taliban too battered to threaten said government.

Whether these strikes are actually doing that, or what the unintended consequences of these strikes will be in the future, are beyond me.

Well of course it helps them win the "war on terror", even if you don't kill actual terrorists. After all, you need to keep up domestic support for your own programs, and if you have to break a few eggs (in the form of killing innocent brown heathens), then why not?
And in addition to that, it also allows you to show of your strength towards the enemy.

Yes, that would be stupid, but it would also be ideologically in tune with quite a few us-american ideas.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Let's not forget it also helps extend the conflict into a perpetual war. You tend not to run out of terrorists to kill when you kill one only for your act to radicalize ten more people into terrorists. You've essentially turned one of their bad guys into nine.

[Todeswind]

I don't think that blowing up random groups of people is all that good for PR, to be honest.

In any case, my concern isn't so much the legality or PR, but what the CIA and the President hope that these "signature" strikes will accomplish. I guess my point is that there must be a reason, even if it's a stupid one, to be blasting large groups of people just on the off-chance that one of them is a Taliban or Al Qaeda member.

But of course you aren't killing "random groups of people", you are killing terrorists!
Which also answers your question what it is supposed to accomplish - it gives the impression that you are doing something, that you are "fighting the war against terror" better than Bush did etc.

I think you're assuming the US citizens give the matter much thought. As a rule of thumb a citizen of the USA trusts their government, loves their military, and has little patience for the daily workings of either. When you describe a hospital being destroyed by drone attack to someone in the USA people are more than likely going to nod, agree with you that it shouldn't happen, and simply go on with their day because unless it happens to an American citizen, or a close ally, it doesn't matter to them. It isn't that the average american sees the victim of a drone attack as a terrorist, its that they don't even think about them long enough to even consider them real. The people hit by stray drone shots aren't living breathing things, they're just abstract numbers on a spreadsheet that add up to fewer US soldiers dead and injured on the balance books.

America has become desensitized to warfare. It almost isn't real to them, drone attacks mean that fewer American soldiers lives are on the line and considering that the only lives that truly matter on the USA's balance sheet are those of Americans it is unlikely that there will be a backlash against the drones within the USA. Especially as they seem to be working on a strategic level.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, I've been saying for a while that the CIA is nothing more than America's state-sanctioned, tax payer funded mafia, and should be abolished. This is just more proof.

And yes, this is another mark against Obama. I'm really going to hate next election, as however I vote, my conscience isn't likely to be too happy. I'll probably still vote for Obama, but I won't be happy about it.

[Shroom Man 777]

Those people are obviously enemy combatants recruiting and helping plan attacks against the USA, and there is irrefutable evidence proving their guilt, it is just classified top secret but has undoubtedly been deliberated and confirmed by the President and commander-in-chief of the United States and its armed forces, together with key members of the military and intelligence community, to make sure without a doubt that those targeted and freedomized with extreme prejudice are nothing but enemies of the state. Only guilty men explode. Innocent people... don't.

This is completely legal, and moreover, in keeping with the core tenets of freedom and democracy and apple pie enshrined in the immutable Constitution that our founding fathers fought and died for, and I will not have any yellow-bellied legalistic meanderings besmirch the legacy of our great nation and its destiny. God bless the United States. And for everyone else who isn't the United States, well... God doesn't have to bless them, since America will make sure that they're all going to meet him pretty soon. Christmas just came early to Pakistan, is all.

[Eulogy]

You know, I've been saying for a while that the CIA is nothing more than America's state-sanctioned, tax payer funded mafia, and should be abolished. This is just more proof.

And yes, this is another mark against Obama. I'm really going to hate next election, as however I vote, my conscience isn't likely to be too happy. I'll probably still vote for Obama, but I won't be happy about it.

Vote for a third party, then. Why vote for evil?

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, I've been saying for a while that the CIA is nothing more than America's state-sanctioned, tax payer funded mafia, and should be abolished. This is just more proof.

And yes, this is another mark against Obama. I'm really going to hate next election, as however I vote, my conscience isn't likely to be too happy. I'll probably still vote for Obama, but I won't be happy about it.

Vote for a third party, then. Why vote for evil?

Because a lot of the minor parties suck balls too, and because taking votes from the Democrats to them increases the chance of a Republican victory, while none of them have a realistic chance of winning.

A better bet would be a primary challenge, but that doesn't seem to be happening. A viable independent would be interesting, but they'd have to be someone really wealthy and popular to have a chance without a party's backing I think. Again, doesn't seem to be happening.

And the sad truth is, Obama probably isn't evil any more than most politicians. That doesn't make his actions acceptable, but God the whole system is fucked up. In a just world, most if not all of the current Congress would probably be in prison.

[Eulogy]

Because a lot of the minor parties suck balls too, and because taking votes from the Democrats to them increases the chance of a Republican victory, while none of them have a realistic chance of winning.

A better bet would be a primary challenge, but that doesn't seem to be happening. A viable independent would be interesting, but they'd have to be someone really wealthy and popular to have a chance without a party's backing I think. Again, doesn't seem to be happening.

And the sad truth is, Obama probably isn't evil any more than most politicians. That doesn't make his actions acceptable, but God the whole system is fucked up. In a just world, most if not all of the current Congress would probably be in prison.

Third parties don't have power because nobody votes for them. Nobody votes for them because they have no power. This self-defeating line of thought contributed to the current situation. Not all third parties are shit, you realize; give them power. Vote for them. Help break the vicious cycle, because both major parties are effectively the same now - you have nothing to lose.

If the Occupy movement gains more steam then many of the shitheads in power can be put behind bars. Don't count them out just yet.

[The Romulan Republic]

Because a lot of the minor parties suck balls too, and because taking votes from the Democrats to them increases the chance of a Republican victory, while none of them have a realistic chance of winning.

A better bet would be a primary challenge, but that doesn't seem to be happening. A viable independent would be interesting, but they'd have to be someone really wealthy and popular to have a chance without a party's backing I think. Again, doesn't seem to be happening.

And the sad truth is, Obama probably isn't evil any more than most politicians. That doesn't make his actions acceptable, but God the whole system is fucked up. In a just world, most if not all of the current Congress would probably be in prison.

Third parties don't have power because nobody votes for them. Nobody votes for them because they have no power. This self-defeating line of thought contributed to the current situation. Not all third parties are shit, you realize; give them power. Vote for them. Help break the vicious cycle, because both major parties are effectively the same now - you have nothing to lose.

If the Occupy movement gains more steam then many of the shitheads in power can be put behind bars. Don't count them out just yet.

The Occupy movement can do a lot of good, perhaps, and I hope something good comes out of it, but it doesn't have power to make arrests. They can draw attention to certain travesties, but they probably won't be able to lock up most of Congress unless they launch an actual revolution of some sort.

Saying that if we just vote for third parties they'll win and fix things is... dubious. At least some of them are focusing on narrow issues and/or appealing to a fanatical fringe. Moreover, realistically, they're not going to win next election. What state do think America (and the world) would be in after four years of one of the current Republicans? The risk is too high right now.

Finally, other routes do exist to encourage reform. I already mentioned primary challenges and independent candidates. The latter is as viable as a third party, at least, and the former probably more so.

[Eulogy]

You don't get it, do you? If you don't like either party don't vote for them. Simple. Third parties aren't gonna win any elections soon, but the ball must be rolled first. At the least it'll send a message to those in power.

[The Romulan Republic]

You don't get it, do you? If you don't like either party don't vote for them. Simple. Third parties aren't gonna win any elections soon, but the ball must be rolled first. At the least it'll send a message to those in power.

And how many years of suffering through depression, theocratic legislation, and needless foreign wars will the nation have to go through as a result? For how many decades will the Supreme Court be subsequently stacked with conservative judges?

And that's assuming one of these wankers doesn't start WWIII.

I get it pretty well, actually. Its a shitty situation all around.

[Eulogy]

Which is better: voting for one of two villains with the full knowledge it won't change anything, or actually starting the change yourself?

If you have to wade through shit, you should at least try to get out ASAP. I'm not saying third parties are a magic bullet, but why throw away what little voice you have?