Comments (74)

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:21 PM:

Los Angeles Times
November 12, 1987,
MESSAGES FROM ROGUE RADIO OPERATOR COULD PROVOKE ATTACK;
FILIPINO MONKEY: ON BACKS OF MANY IN TENSE GULF

---
A cargo ship was sailing through the Strait of Hormuz recently when it was challenged by an Iranian warship demanding to know what it carried.

Iranian gunboats in these waters frequently attack vessels they suspect of carrying war materials to Iraq, and for the crew of the cargo ship, it was a tense moment.

"What is your cargo? What is your cargo?" the voice of an Iranian officer crackled over the radio.

Before the ship's captain could respond, a third voice came on the air: "I am carrying machine guns and hand grenades to Iraq . . . and the atom bomb."

The Filipino Monkey had struck again.

Jokes and Taunts

Sailors in this part of the world are by now well-acquainted with the rogue radio operator who calls himself "The Filipino Monkey." He has been interjecting jokes and taunts into radio conversations between ships at the southern end of the Persian Gulf for at least three years.

But as the Iran-Iraq War escalates and tensions rise, with the warships of several nations patrolling the gulf on a hair-trigger state of alert, the Filipino Monkey has become more than just an occasionally amusing annoyance.

"He's dangerous," one gulf-based shipping source said. "He gets on the radio when ships are being challenged, and some of the things he tells the Iranians could provoke an attack."

Most of what he tells the Iranians is unprintable.

'Doesn't Like Iranians'

"Whoever he is, he doesn't seem to like Iranians very much," the shipping source said. "He tells them what he thinks of them in graphic terms."

Memories vary, but most shipping sources who have listened to the Monkey say they first heard him about three years ago.

"He started out by playing music and then by taunting other seamen, usually Filipinos, with curses in the middle of the night," one official recalled.

Other seamen would respond in kind until the airwaves were alive with colorful arguments in various accents of English. This livened things up during the lonely and monotonous graveyard shifts in the gulf, and so for a time nobody much minded the Monkey's technically illegal activities. His transmissions were an abusive, but harmless, form of entertainment.

Dark Humor

But since the arrival of U.S. warships and an increase in Iranian challenges to shipping at the southern end of the gulf, the Monkey's mischief has assumed a darker side.

"I don't know whether he's trying to make trouble or whether he's simply an idiot who doesn't understand the implications of what he is doing, but either way he is a real hazard to commercial shipping," a former ship captain said.

One case in point is another recent encounter between an Iranian gunboat and a merchant vessel near the Strait of Hormuz last month. When the gunboat challenged the vessel, demanding to know its destination, the Filipino Monkey broke in and replied: "I go to your mother's house. . . . "

The encounter ended peaceably, apparently because the Iranian captain was also familiar with the Monkey's antics.

Search Under Way

But the recurrence of such incidents has moved officials of the United Arab Emirates to mount a search for the Monkey. According to shipping sources, Ministry of Communications officials have been checking on shore-based two-way radios in recent weeks to make sure they are licensed.

"They are trying to narrow down where this guy might be broadcasting from," one shipping executive said.

Catching the Monkey is not proving to be easy, however, because there are hundreds of possible locations for his transmitter, including ships, supply boats, tugs, oil platforms and shore-based facilities.

Also, there may be more than one Monkey. Because he has been broadcasting for far longer than any normal tour of duty for seamen or oil workers in the gulf, officials think the Filipino Monkey has spawned imitators and that there may now be more than one radio operator using the same moniker.

Many Monkeys?

"Everyone has their own theories about how many Monkeys there are and where he or they are based," said Margaret Rogg, a reporter for CBS who frequently monitors marine radio traffic. "My own image of him is that he's someone with a lot of time on his hands, maybe someone who's handicapped and has nothing to do but play with his radio all day."

Whoever he is, the Filipino Monkey's sing-song voice is also becoming familiar to U.S. sailors in the gulf.

Early last month, for instance, he broke into the middle of a tense radio exchange between a U.S. ship and an Iranian warship.

The Iranian ship had locked its weapons radar onto the U.S. warship, which was warning it in no uncertain terms to stand down. The warning was repeated three times until the Filipino Monkey added his own.

"Iranian warship, Iranian warship," he said. "You gonna get it now."

BlueInTexas wrote on January 11, 2008 6:28 PM:

Maybe a few modifications to an AGM-88 HARM (high-speed anti-radiation missile) missile might help clear up some radio traffic to keep US and Iran from going to war.

RB-Chicago wrote on January 11, 2008 6:38 PM:

The transmission is coming straight from Cheeny's office.

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:56 PM:

Now we find out the "rest of the story": Apparently this was a "well known" problem; and something that should have been passed on through Chief of Naval Operations and the various Fleet Command Meetings.

1. During the handover meetings when Naval Captains review their ships logs, and when they have cross-talks with "experts" in communication centers, could someone in DoD explain why this "cross talk" about "Filipino Monkey" did not occur?

2. When the public affairs office issues a _public statement_ that is generally assumed to have been linked with _some_ research, and some coordination with Command. Could the Naval Pubulic Affairs office explain why it took this long _after_ the shots were fired on the bases of "alleged Filipino Monkey statements" why DoD is waiting to provide "the rest of the story"?

3. We're also asked to believe that this 'well known person' named "Filipino Monkey" isn't new on the scene. Yet, the way the issue was presented -- along with teh video tape and audio getting combined -- that this was _iranian_. Could someone tell us how anyone who supposedly knew about "Filipino Monkey" explain how the _audio_ was [a] captured; [b] how NSA interecpted the infromation, but was "confused" as to whether the person was or was not 'Filipinon Monkey"; and [c] how the NSA-NAVY-JCS were on "hair trigger firing orders" despite this 'well known' Filipino Monkey; and [d] how much information NSA has captured which would/should have been well known to Naval Commanders/Fleet Admirals/Chief of Naval Operations?

4. How do we explain a 'well known' person making _routine_ and _regular_ taunts on _open frequencies_; yet the US _NAVY_ was "surprised" or "alarmed" or "not sure" what was going on?

5. Are we to believe -- despite the "professionals" who are "leading" the "war on terror" -- that there is a _lone_ person named 'Filipino Monkey' who is able to [a] alarm well trained US NAvy Personne; [b] confuse NSA; [c] induce the NAVY-NSA to confuse a 'Filipinon Monkey Transmission' with that of the _Iranian Navy_?

6. Could someone from the JCS please inform the Congress how -- apparently -- the US _Navay_ was on the verge of attacking a ship based on transmissions that were _not_ from that ship; but another source; and explain what method -- if any -- exists to ensure the [a] radio transmissions/alleged threats are linked with [b] the supposed "threat".

7. Given the 'well known' "Filipinon Monkey" that has been transmitting: Could someone from the US _Navy_ explain [a] what method has been used to identify the source of the trnasmission; and [b] what method exists to ensure the source of the "Filipino Monkey Transmission" is not confused with a _Sovereign_ nation's boats in international water_?

8. Several years ago, the US Navy was involved with a shoot down of a Iranian Civilian arliner. There was some confusion. Supposedly, the US _NAVY_ contracted with various _contractors_ to develop new systems so this would not happen again. Yet, we realize in 2008 that the US _NAVY_ is unable to distinguish between transmission from Iranian _boats_ than those from a "well known prankster_. Please discuss from the HASC and SASC the technology the NAVY has on hands that makes this "identifification of friend or foe" technology -- that was supposedly addressed with the Iranian airline shoot down -- "not able" to distinguish bewteen official or prankster transmission?

8. Is it the position of the NSA contractors that they are _not_ able to provide _any_ technical assistance to the US _Navy_ so they can tell teh difference betweeen: [a] well known pranksters; and [b] People transmitting from _known, visible_ sea based platforms; if so, what are the issues with oil platform security; and how do the IFF systems on the oil platforms differentiate between crew helicopters brining crews to the oil platforms and those of "pranksters" in another part of the ocean?

If we are to believe that the _US NAVY_ cannot tell the difference between a "well known prankster" and the Iranian Navy, then the _US NAVY_ has a larger problem on its hand which the HASC and SASC need an _immediate_ briefing, per Article I Section 8: What is the needed funding to mitigate this confusion; and what assistance does the CHief of _NAVAL_ operations need to ensure his Fleets are adequately able to tell the difference between a prankster and a bonafide threat to the _United States_?

This explanation smells. if the US navy cannot _timely_ tell the difference between a prankster or a bonafide threat, then someone isn't giving the President or Congress a straight story: If that "nexus" were real, then _no_ US government official would enter the Middle East. Yet, every day, US Members of Congress and the Executive Branch safely enter the area. Apparently someone is confident "there will be no problem". What's the real problem with this botched audio; and who isn't conducint adequate training and cross talks within the _NAVY_?

tiowally wrote on January 11, 2008 7:04 PM:

Having seen the radios used on US Coast Guard vessels that actually identify the exact compass point of a transmission, I find it impossible to believe the US Navy can't find the source of the elusive Monkey.

Having said that, I also must admit my first reaction: The Navy was lieing., fabricating the whole threat. Indeed, this administration's -- and ALL of its minions -- look far overhead at a Zero when its credibility is measured on a One to 10 scale.

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 7:04 PM:

Any thoughts about "Filipino Monkey" being on Cheney's payroll, or part of a DoD black operation to spark an attack on Iran?

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 7:12 PM:

Why aren't the radio transmissions -- as the NSA "should" be able to pinpoint -- automatically blocked.

Or is the NSA-NAVY tell us, "WE can't do that." Then the US has a bigger problem: NSA _can_ illegally target "easy" targets -- US civilians -- but will not target "real targets" that are contributing to confusion.

Or is the "Filipino Monkey" merely an excuse? We should be able to get some contractors working on a technical jamming solution to filter out his taunts.

Or is it the intent of the President and COngress to not do anything about this, because both branches of government enjoy the confusion? The leadership is not impressive. Great minds in the US could, if motivated, put someone on the surface of the moon. But, because the weather is unfavorable, nobody wants to address a Monkey.

Looks like someone enjoys having him around as an excuse. Why aren't the US and Iranians jointly working together on this common problem? Lack of leadership in the United States Defense Department and State Department.

Get with it, America. You have a problem with disruptive transmission. Surely all other ships are confused. Any plans to outline a technical solution so all ships are not annoyed, and can focus on real problems? OR is the US more interested in letting this problem get worse, as it would rather spend _more_ money fighting a war based on a false premise; than in taking joint action to solve joint problems. A sole source contract could have been awarded, but wasn't. Sounds like someone knows about the real source of the transmissions and isn't using _all_ resources to mitigate this "Threat".

Check the OVP e-mail deletions. Addington was "worried" about prisoners in Eastern Europe. Where are the DOJ OLC commentaries on "why the Filipino Monkey isn't getting adequate attention at the NSC?" The President, despite the presence of these transmissions, gives an all clear to land in Baghdad. Surely, he has an interest in reducing the confusion. Or is he now sleeping on the couch because of another spat with Laura, unable to concentrate on threats to the US?

Brenda Stouffer wrote on January 11, 2008 7:14 PM:

As much as I would believe this administration would lie about anything to further their goals, I do have a friends whose son is aboard one of the ships involved in this incident and he said that in fact the incident did occur. It is not another Tonkin.

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 7:17 PM:

If the "prankster" was "known" then why wasn't the "known source" of the audio screened before it was added to the video?

Doesn't make sense. A "known prankster's audio" would have been noticed, "Hay, this is the Filipino MOnkey again, we cannot let this audio out; nor add it to the video." But, DoD did, with Navy Concurrence.

Which propaganda cell working in DoD coordinated with contractors to add a _known_ prankster's voice, then release it for public consumption?

Smells like an ethics issue. Or maybe it's intended to confuse the Iranians about what the US is really able to do; and why the US ships were there in the first place; and what the _US ships_ were hoping to distract attention from with this "confusion".

Who in the Navy is using this as an excuse for funding programs which were on the chopping block?

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 7:21 PM:

Brenda Stouffer wrote on January 11, 2008 7:14 PM

Why is your friend's son discussing via e-mail [?] ongoing Navy operations? Sounds like a job for NCIS. LOL

He only has part of the story. Has her personally met the Filipino Monkey? LOL

It may have been true that there was an incident; but do we really know how the audio from Filipino Monkey (or whoever it was) was added to the video; and why the US Navy said there were "threats" despite the "known" presence of this "Filipino Monkey"?

BlueInTexas wrote on January 11, 2008 7:21 PM:

No doubt that it occurred.

The issue is how the administration handled it. Blowing up the issue to create some international incident is the problem. Tick off one more reason for impeachment.

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 7:39 PM:

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 7:21 PM:

Brenda Stouffer wrote on January 11, 2008 7:14 PM

Why is your friend's son discussing via e-mail [?] ongoing Navy operations? Sounds like a job for NCIS. LOL

BINGO.

But some person calling herself Brenda Stauffer heard form a friend whose cousin is dating a sister whose brother was there and saw the whole thing and emailed her about it. Since it was on the internet it must be true.

The one thing about this we know 100% for sure if bullshit, is what Brenda posted, that some sailor emailed from sea about this.

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 7:40 PM:

The release -- now in Jan 2008 -- of "incidents" in Dec 2007 is irrelevant. How far is the US Government going to go back to "show there is a common problem". If the incident in December was a "serious issue" -- then it should have been raised with _Iran_ then; not bundled into this January incident.

Going forward:

A. What is the plan of the US and Iranian governments to _jointly_ agree to common communication protocols so that [1] Filipino Monkey' transmissions, whoever the source, are adequately filtered; [2] if there are concerns, the Iranians and US _navies, at sea_ jointly cooperate in _international waters_ to ensure there is _safe_ passage for _all_ shipping; [3] what efforts attempted to date have not worked, with a public discussion in Iran and the US what alternates are going to be used to ensure the "errors" are mitigated.

B. What is the plan of the US Congress to review the incident and the Navy's claims that there is "confusion" about the transmission; and the asserted "lack of plan or capability" to detect, track, and filter out "Filipino Monkey's transmissions"?

C. Is there any effort by the media to privately meet with Filipino Monkey -- as they have done with Osama Bin Ladin -- to find out his interests: What's this person after; do they want a platform; do they have some legitimate gripes; or are they engaging in criminal activity and need to be tracked and captured for prosecution?

D. What is the plan of the US, Iranian, and oil shipping companies to collectively raise these issues, and develop a bounty program -- funded by oil profits -- to ensure communications in the Gulf are accurate, safe, not threatening; and that the _commercial shipping communications_ are not interrupted?

E. Is there any plan to find the _location_ of the "Filipino Monkey"; and ask what this person wants; do they have a gripe.

F. What reason should the public have in believing the US Navy's story: Supposedly, this is a "known" problem; but there's a video tape with audio attached.

G. What is the plan going forward that will ensure this does not happen again; that, in international waters, all ships are allowed to safely pass; and that the Iranians are lawfully allowed to travel just as the US and commercial shipping?

H. What plans have been discussed; what forums exist that are not working; and what is going to convince the US and Iranian shipping personnel/militaries to try some new strategies to mutually work together?

I. What is the plan of the US and Iranian navies to conduct _joint naval exercise_; and ensure, as was done with the Russians and Chinese, that there are some shared protocols and communications to reduce tensions, cooperate, and solve this continuing problem?

J. What is the plan of the President's of the US and Iran to jointly issue a statement to the UN Security Council explaining how they have agreed to cooperate, and solve this problem; and what lessons they hope other nations can glean from their leadership?

K. What principles of leadership, civility, and statesmanship is the US President expecting of Israel and the Palestinians; and is there a reason the US President is not able to extend the olive branch to the Iranian President using the same principles he expects of the combatants fighting over control of Israel, Jerusalem, and the Palestinian territories?

L. What is the plan of the major oil consumers to work with the oil exporters to ensure this problem is solved: That the communications are clear; that the nations in the area can conduct intelligence gathering operations; and that the flow of commercial and military shipping is not affected?

Someone needs to give a straight story why small, high speed boats -- which are not attacking the US, but engaging in lawfully protected intelligence gathering -- should be of a "concern" to the US. Understandably, the USS Cole was attacked, prompting understandable skittishness in the ranks of the US Navy. But the US needs to show some restrain, provide some leadership, and work with the world community to solve this issue. The public can reasonably expect more leadership from the US President.

lestatdelc wrote on January 11, 2008 7:48 PM:

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 7:12 PM:

...

We should be able to get some contractors working on a technical jamming solution to filter out his taunts.

Huh?

You think you can selectively jam a single user in a radio frequency that must be open to civilian use?

Not possible.

You would have to have develope a type of code/decode broadcast format for all civilian ships to use to block out all non-civilian ship use. In essence you would have to develop and deploy to all water craft radio users, a hardware coded standard and system globally. And even then it would be next to impossible to keep it from being compromised since you would have to give it to anyone who uses water craft worldwide.

W.D. Arnold wrote on January 11, 2008 7:48 PM:

The Navy footage shows just how close to U.S ships the high speed boats got. It also shows the alleged suicide bombers wearing their life preservers. What's wrong with that picture?

Jack D. Ripper wrote on January 11, 2008 7:57 PM:

They should have been using the proper code prefix on their CRM 114.

Honest John wrote on January 11, 2008 8:10 PM:

The smirking chimp harassed by a filipino monkey. How appropriate....

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 8:17 PM:

Time for the US public to seek the COngressional pressure, and make it clear to the President: You and your staff will work with the Iranians to solve this problem; and the threats about "serious consequences" need to be tempered.

If similar incidents happened in Dec 2007 and earlier, we've not heard anything suggesting Presidential concern.

For the President to now issue threats of "serious consequences" -- in Jan 2008, despite _public_ silence about the 2007 "incidents" -- the President has a problem: He's failed to account for the "known problems" his Naval Commanders have "known about; and cannot explain why the audio source isn't related to the images; nor why the Navy was "reacting" to audio transmissions unrelated to the visual. Sounds more like a command and control problem over the US Navy. That is the President.

1. How long has the _President_ known about his command and control problem over the US Navy;

2. What is the _President's plan_ to ensure he solves this problem with "being unable to determine the source of a radio transmission"?

3. What is the _President's plan_ to exercise the same leadership skills he expects of others at the UN Security Council?

If the US -- on the basis of this information, that appears to be knowingly false, unrelated to Iran, but from a known "filipino Monkey -- attacks the Iranian military, there could be _worldwide_ consequences for the United States. Iran _has_ discussed issues with Russia, China, Venezuela, and Cuba. The US is not _militarily_ in a position to engage on _all levels_ should the Iranians rightfully seek Russian-Chinese-Venezuelan-Cuban assistance in interfering with _like harassment_ in the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, and North Atlantic.

The _President's problem_ is _his_ command and control problem -- that of being "unable" to distinguish between a bonafide threat; an Iranian transmission; a commercial shipping communication; or a "Filipino Monkey" suggests the President: [a] knows, or should know about this problem through the PDBs; [b] has well discussed this problem with contractors, but there is no solution in place, as should be reasonably expected _two decades_ after the problem first surfaced.

Let's mobilize the DoD Auditors to review:

A. We need to find out the specific contracts which have been issued to fund research into this problem; and the known technical solutions which exist, but have not been deployed;

B. The funding profiles of the various Navy programs currently part of the President's budget that will resolve this communication problems, and interference;

C. Complaints with DoD IG from US Navy contractors that known threats to US shipping could be solved, but were not adequately included/excluded within the technical requirements of existing programs and contracts;

D. A statement of the _reasons_ those technical requirements were excluded, despite this "known problem" that has been spanning _two decades_;

E. A summary of the System Program Office impact statements to DoD/Naval Command when these programs were cut, not funded, or were slipped to the out-years'

F. The educational backgrounds of the lead contractor scientists involved with analyzing these threats/problems; and a summary of the briefings they have given to the Navy System Program Office responsible for these specific technical solutions.

G. The copies of the trip reports Naval Fleet Commanders have made related to this problem; and a discussion of their communications they've given to the contractors after these visits to address this "technical problem". Include in that report a summary of any dissenting views in the program office; or feedback from the intelligence community about this "not being needed".

H. When was the last time the DoD Joint Requirements Oversight Council [JROC] reviewed this issue; and which technical solutions going back _two decades_ have been attempted, but have not worked?

I. How was this "intelligence issue" raised in the PDB, and with the NIE on current threats to the Navy: In terms of "chances of errors" and "efforts intelligence sources/units/personnel are taking to understand this threat"?

The contractors working for the Navy and the Naval staffers in the Pentagon have a job to organize. This is Friday evening, there are contractors at home who can outline their quick and dirty responses. If needed, you can contact NCIS in Hawaii, Japan, and the Gulf _now_ and get this going.

It is absurd that there is "confusion" about this given NSA-CIA intelligence assets can well mange data worldwide _if_ they have the right leadership. This is bungling. Get to work, and we need to hear a statement NLT 8AM Saturday Morning, Tomorrow. Something that resembles English and is understandable to Congress and the public.

If the President, DoD, and Navy want to spew out non-sense about what is going on, then there is plenty of paperwork in DoD to either support their assertion that they are "leading to solve this problem"; or, conversely, the lack of information will quickly shed light on how much of this "Filipino Monkey Problem" has not been adequately addressed by the Naval Systems Program Office, NAVSEA or the President. He's been there since 2001. What is his excuse?

If they cannot quickly organize this information -- which "should exist" if this "threat from Filipino Monkey is real", then you're talking something else: Non-sense, no leadership, and an excuse to not solve a _real_ problem. Congress needs to explain what _their plan_ is to review what this President plans to do now that the NIE on Iran no longer supports his expanded warfare from Iraq into Iran. If the COngress fails to document their concerns, then ICC may review to what extent Members of Congress were not willing to challenge the US efforts which appear to duplicate Japan's during WWII: Using lawful opposition to illegal activity to "justify" an attack on Pearl Harbor; the US appears, in light of this incident, hoping to duplicate Japan and use the "opposition to its non-sense" as an excuse to expand illegal warfare from Iraq into Iran.

JAGs: Need to provide inputs to Congressional Staff COunsel in _open_ hearings:

The JAGs need to immediately be called to Congress and outline their views on these issues in light of Japan, WWII, and the lack of evidence from NAVSEA in re "the Filipino Monkey threat." This is not an _imminent threat_ from Iran; it is a bungled excuse to create confusion, then use warfare to "solve" the _wrong_ problem. Clearly, Congress hasn't awoken to the "lesson" of Iraq and the WMD issues. Without impeachment investigations or a credible Phase II report in re WMD, the public should not be surprised. But we can expect more.

New leaders and new methods to oversee this US government are on the table. Time for the US Government to wake up. Not make more excuses to expand illegal warfare. These issues need to be presented to the ICC.

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 8:21 PM:

lestatdelc wrote on January 11, 2008 7:48 PM

"You think you can selectively jam a single user in a radio frequency that must be open to civilian use?"

"Not possible."

Non-sense. It can be _filtered_ based on known parameters:
- Signal strength;
- Direction;
- Type of discrete sounds/audio patterns

This information, when tagged, can be sent to a secondary processor that will "flag" the signal; and award it a special sound, or some sort of signal that will alert the listener: "This is a repeat problem; and not credible. But here it is."

"Man on the Moon," but can't do this? Sounds like a contractor excuse for "We're too lazy." Find another contractor who is willing to do this.

- Two different boats/ships, and you're saying "Can't triangulate"?!?

danger wrote on January 11, 2008 8:25 PM:

Impeach the monkeys, before they manage to start world war three over some asinine bullshit like this.

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 8:31 PM:

lestatdelc wrote on January 11, 2008 7:48 PM

This is defeatist, but well discusses the challenge: Why not discuss some other descriptions of the problem; and see if there cannot be some discussion about what _would solve this_, as opposed to excuses.

This doesn't necessarily correctly characterize the "solvable problem," but makes excuses:

"You would have to have develope a type of code/decode broadcast format for all civilian ships to use to block out all non-civilian ship use. In essence you would have to develop and deploy to all water craft radio users, a hardware coded standard and system globally. And even then it would be next to impossible to keep it from being compromised since you would have to give it to anyone who uses water craft worldwide."

A. Wrong Problem

You don't know whether the signal is analog or digital. The signal could be tagged. If there are repeaters in the area; when a specific signal was received, that signal could be "married" with a special message that has flagged it.

B. Standardless ANSI?

"We need standard". Oh, stop whining. Then get some heads together and solve this. You have enough time to outline the problem, or one definition of "the problem"; there is _no imminent threat_: We have time to talk, the President is denied his excuse to bypass Geneva and attack Iran.

C. No Software Specifications, yet

Wow, this problem has been around for 20 years, and someone is saying, "There are no standards." Stunning! Let's try a fast solution: "If we hear this type of signal, we will create a jamming/neutralizing signal for _that signal_.

D. Triangulation

Supposedly "the signal" comes from _somewhere_: The US navy "intercepted" it. Are you saying that the same Navy that can _track_ signals, can't triangulate on a target; and can't neutralize a signal?

E. Flagging

If there's a wave pattern, you can monitor a signal; and -- from that location, or nearby -- send out a neutralizing signal which would either silence the source; or would attach a message to that "bad signal" and say, "This is a suspect signal".

F. Central Shipping Monitor

If there were _central_ shipping-communication center along the Gulf -- like there is Aircraft Control under FAA -- the information could be collected, and retransmitted to all ships. How do you know it would be "compromised" if it hasn't been _developed_? More excuses for inaction. Who wants to solve this RDT&E problem for NAVSEA?

dennisS wrote on January 11, 2008 8:56 PM:

10. Is the CIC considering the possibility that FilipMonk is broadcasting from outer space?

B. What if we reverted to the gold standard, would the radio transmissions automatically devalue and allow average Americans to afford to buy homes?

12. Are Iranian speedboats and Kennebunkport cigarette boats equipped with identical screw propellers and if so why? Who is the real screw propeller afterall?

13. There is no number 13.

14. Monkey and Cheney; both end in "ey" coincidence, I think not.

15. WWJD? Reduce taxes of course; No more Filipino Monkey transmissions after that.

16. I'm all breathless, somebody give me a hand.

17. Somebody wake up Fred. We need you now.

E. Is it Friday? No wonder.

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote on January 11, 2008 9:04 PM:

Tis is an example of a type of attack that has been giving many of us serious concern: the risk that a bunch of 'irregulars' conducting a cyber-attack might tip us into a real war.

We first saw an example of this during the 2001 US-China standoof over a downed fighter jet. While the diplomats tried to de-escalate the crisis groups of hackers on both sides were trying to amp-up the aggression through cyber-attacks.

There is also some evidence to suggest that certain states tollerate the activities of certain hacker groups as a means of establishing and maintaining a cyber-attack capability. Until recently cyber-warfare made little military sense, there is no way to be sure that your gun is going to fire when you need it. A zero day attack is not worth much if patched first.

I describe the workings of the cybercrime markets in my book The dotCrime Manifesto: How to Stop Internet Crime. The short form is, you can buy anything you might need if you have the right contacts.

This is a low tech attack, there are subtler possibilities. For example, how about inserting a bogus press release into PR Newswire? Or Associated Press? A report that some world leader had been assasinated could cause riots in other parts of the world. Or tell people that some government document has been exposed as a deliberate forgery - no way to ever put that toothpaste back in the tube.

drboom wrote on January 11, 2008 9:18 PM:

Interesting how this national security issue comes on the eve of a primary vote involving a former navy man using security issue credentials to win more votes. Wonder how many votes votes McCain squeezed out of this?

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 9:21 PM:

Phillip Hallam-Baker

I'm impressed with your insights, and recall the incident with the C130 and the Chicoms.

I also remember Squawk Box announcing that the Russian president was dead, a RSS feed that went bad (injected) when the news still fed under the "internal public consumption" byline.

I was particularly concerned that when the GOP debate was held that pretty much everybody but McCain had a over reaction to the news story and that the comments on Pakistan were over the top as well.

But that said, the issue where there is a genuine issue with security of Naval vessels in the gulf, should not be trivialized, and the commanders handled the event correctly, and as we can see, if the 'injection' of the comments on radio did occur then it is all the more reason for Iran to act responsibly in these international waters.

Now one last insight.. what about the PR film by the DHS of a generator "simulating" a run away meltdown due to hackers taking control of it?

Where did that stand??

Yeah people need to sniff their ideas as well as they sniff their food, and few do.

I'm just irritated with the collective assumption that the USN orchestrated this event out of a conspiracy to help the Neocons on the eve of an election in NH.

It really irritated me that there was an assumption that just because Iran released a video that USN lied.

I never drink the koolaid and I'm capable at mixing a prankster brew myself, but it really exceeds the understanding of the way the Navy operates to suggest that they manufactired this event.

Bat Guano wrote on January 11, 2008 10:00 PM:

All I know is I think my wife nailed it, when she said, "Sounds like Iranian frat boys."

frege wrote on January 11, 2008 10:16 PM:

I don't think you can just block a frequency the way some have suggested here. I also don't think it is possible to trace a radio signal as the, despite what our illustrious Coast Guard veteran suggests.

cb wrote on January 11, 2008 10:37 PM:

"Iranian speedboats approached US warships in two previously undisclosed incidents in the Strait of Hormuz in December."

The Strait of Hormuz is off the coast of Iran -- this is like U.S. Navy or Coast Guard vessels approaching Iranian ships off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia. Nations have a right to police their coastlines, and to approach and examine ships that pass their sovereign territory.

OMFG! Iranian boats off the coast of Iran! It's the apocalypse!

prior experience wrote on January 11, 2008 11:12 PM:

frege wrote on January 11, 2008 10:16 PM:

"... I also don't think it is possible to trace a radio signal ... despite what our illustrious Coast Guard veteran suggests."

The technology to determine the direction a radio signal is coming from has been available for many decades...

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 11:17 PM:

The Filipino Monkey was actually mentioned in a book that was published back in 2003, and it was mentioned as if the Monkey had been doing this for years. I find it strange that some articles are claiming this has been "known for about three years."
But then, this administration doesn't have the best track record of vetting information before releasing it to scare the population.

Benjy Sarlin wrote on January 11, 2008 11:22 PM:

If no one's mentioned it, the Filipino Monkey is described in hilarious detail in Tony Horwitz's Gulf War I era travelogue "Baghdad without a Map."

Tom Jackson wrote on January 12, 2008 12:13 AM:

All this talk about filtering the radio traffic is silly. Analysts on Navy ships are NOT boneheads. They knew very well the Filipino Monkey transmission wasn't a threatening Iranian transmission.

Someone further up the chain of command cobbled this together so Bush could make an issue out of it, because, he and Cheney are still trying to start a war on fabricated pretenses.

It is not a matter of doubt any longer: Cheney must be removed from office immediately. His antics are dangerous and criminal.

Start the hearings on impeaching Cheney and make fast work of it. There's more than enough evidence to arrest him and throw him in the brig right now. As a matter of fact, given the seriousness of the crimes, I'd say a vote for impeachment is sufficient to place him under arrest PENDING trial in the Senate.

Some person on the Internet wrote on January 12, 2008 12:21 AM:

The attacks on Brenda Stouffer are unwarranted. I fully believe that the son of a friend of hers said an incident did occur.

The challenge is that most of the thousands of men aboard a ship would have no basis on which to evaluate claims of what happened. If the radio guys didn't know about Filipino Monkey, then none of their mates would, either. I believe the Captain did come close to firing on the Iranian boat, and THAT news would spread like wildfire -- every man aboard would know. The question remains: were the Iranians actually threatening the US boat, or not? What evidence is there?

Rumors spread VERY, VERY fast aboard a ship. And even with the best of intentions and interest in the truth, the full story may not be known by those aboard until much later (if ever).

Nell wrote on January 12, 2008 12:40 AM:

I'm appalled that this story is even getting the attention it is here, and that it continues on some level to be taken seriously.

It's laughable GARBAGE. Period.

Dave Bowman wrote on January 12, 2008 12:52 AM:

I wonder if one of the Iranian swiftboaters will run for the office of President of Iran someday...and have his heroic account of this day challenged by political opponents!

putnam wrote on January 12, 2008 1:24 AM:

His opponents will say he was lying about being abreast the destroyer, because he was ashore that very night!

jimbo92107 wrote on January 12, 2008 1:29 AM:

Sounds like a good reason to invite the Iranian speed boat guys over for a cup of tea. Get to know them a bit. Maybe exchange a few little gifts.

What a crazy idea, eh?

lestatdelc wrote on January 12, 2008 2:07 AM:

frege wrote on January 11, 2008 10:16 PM:

I don't think you can just block a frequency the way some have suggested here

Which really goes to my point. Jamming and filtering are two entirely different propositions. I was responding to someone posting that you could jam the broadcasts which is not possible unless you want to stop the use of the frequency locally for the reasons I outlined. Which defeats the whole point.

Heath Hunnicutt wrote on January 12, 2008 4:12 AM:

I'm a computer programmer and have worked with the kind of electronics I am about to describe.

I am completely convinced that the "threatening" voice in the audio is a digitally synthesized voice:

- The cadence of the consonants and vowels is too regular and rhythmic for a human speaker.

- The speech is nearly a monotone. Where the speech has dynamic tone, it has a synthetic-sounding dynamic like a decaying mathematical function.

- The pauses between the words are both unnatural and too consistent.

In my opinion, the voice is synthesized from what are called "phoneme samples." These are like a bunch of really short MP3 files -- of sounds that make up parts of speech, such as the "th" from "the." English can be represented from a pool of around 64 phonemes. To synthesize the word "the" a programmer looks up the phoneme numbers for "th" and either "ee" or "uh", depending on which "the" you want to say: "thee" or "thuh." You tell the computer to play file "th.mp3" then file "ee.mp3", then a brief pause before the next word.

One of the problems with this method is that it's hard to stretch out the vowels. Sometimes in words, vowels are supposed to last a while (e.g., the 'o' in "explode" is much "longer" than the 'e' with which the word begins) and other times, vowels are over quickly.

I think the second (0:27) threat is:

"We will explode after FOUR minutes."

And that the word "four" gave the transmitter some problems -- they had too much trouble making the vowel sustain for long enough and it sounds like "fir" or even "frr".

And I think the funny accent is what I would call "digital dipthongs" -- the reason these vowels are so strange is that the person transmitting this tried to come up with a way to sustain them. I would say they used a typical 'hack' for this method -- inserting extra vowel sounds. It might seem like the way to do this is to double the vowel, but that doesn't work: as an example, if "you" ("y-oo") sounds too short coming from the synthesizer, tell it to say "y-oo-oo" instead. Unfortuntely, this sounds like "you oooh," because the "oo" vowel changes from start-to-finish and so you can't just splice them together. So, what you do instead is find a vowel on the chip you have (e.g., a 64-phoneme English set) that "sounds good" after the vowel you already need. In the tape from the confrontation, we hear

"I am coming to (yoo-uh)."

"We will (expl-owe-eh-dt) after (fir) minutes."

Another tell-tale sign of phoneme-splicing synthesis is the final consonants in "will" and also "explode" again. The consonant after "will" just doesn't sustain long enough and there sounds like an unnatural motion of the tongue to pronounce it -- but typical of a phoneme chip. Similarly, "explode" sounds as if it ends in a strange "dt" consonant that just "sounds" synthesized if you ask me.

My personal theory: the boxes dropped in the water were transmitting the voice, from a chip. Possibly, it could have been a digital countdown:
"You will explode after four minutes."
"You will explode after three minutes."
etc.,

"Somebody set us up the bomb!"

heathhunnicutt (aht) hotmail (dawt) com

sparkles wrote on January 12, 2008 6:11 AM:

I just want to say "black ops" cause it makes me feel special and horny and like I'm an important insider.

Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 7:40 AM:

Dick Cheney is horny for another war and he'll seize ANY excuse. Whether that voice was the Monkey or a nefarious digitized Pentagon plot doesn't really matter. Cheney's gotta have his war.

Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 9:35 AM:

the bush presidency is the bigger prank.

redjade wrote on January 12, 2008 9:49 AM:

It is stunning to read through all this - this is considered to be a professional military?

anotherlib wrote on January 12, 2008 11:32 AM:

Well, we can't find bin Laden; there's no way we get this Monkey guy...

JM wrote on January 12, 2008 12:24 PM:

Meanwhile, back in NY, the stock exchange is tanking, Merrill Lynch will post huge writedowns, and now they're talking the "when" of recession. Off in the no-fun rooms where there's never a whiff of Britney, only stale paper and procedure.

So of course we need some heavily accented "Iranian" threats to set the diamonds a-tremble on the hands of many an SUV soccer mom as she dials up the radio host and says she wants to "just nuke them all."

Fess up: when you hear the name "Revolutionary Guards" don't you automatically get a mental picture of some Saddamoid heavy breather?

r cumberbatch wrote on January 12, 2008 1:06 PM:

Is this the Peublo Tonkin trick now in the straits?

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 12, 2008 1:07 PM:

I don't like the tone of your post!

The Secret Cause of Flame Wars
Stephen Leahy 02.13.06 | 2:00 AM
"Don't work too hard," wrote a colleague in an e-mail today. Was she sincere or sarcastic? I think I know (sarcastic), but I'm probably wrong.

According to recent research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I've only a 50-50 chance of ascertaining the tone of any e-mail message. The study also shows that people think they've correctly interpreted the tone of e-mails they receive 90 percent of the time.

"That's how flame wars get started," says psychologist Nicholas Epley of the University of Chicago, who conducted the research with Justin Kruger of New York University. "People in our study were convinced they've accurately understood the tone of an e-mail message when in fact their odds are no better than chance," says Epley.

The researchers took 30 pairs of undergraduate students and gave each one a list of 20 statements about topics like campus food or the weather. Assuming either a serious or sarcastic tone, one member of each pair e-mailed the statements to his or her partner. The partners then guessed the intended tone and indicated how confident they were in their answers.

Those who sent the messages predicted that nearly 80 percent of the time their partners would correctly interpret the tone. In fact the recipients got it right just over 50 percent of the time.

"People often think the tone or emotion in their messages is obvious because they 'hear' the tone they intend in their head as they write," Epley explains.

At the same time, those reading messages unconsciously interpret them based on their current mood, stereotypes and expectations. Despite this, the research subjects thought they accurately interpreted the messages nine out of 10 times.

The reason for this is egocentrism, or the difficulty some people have detaching themselves from their own perspective, says Epley. In other words, people aren't that good at imagining how a message might be understood from another person's perspective.

"E-mail is very easy to misinterpret, which not only triggers flame wars but lots of litigation," says Nancy Flynn, executive director of the e-Policy Institute and author of guidebooks E-Mail Rules and Instant Messaging Rules. Many companies battle workplace lawsuits triggered by employee e-mail, according to Flynn.

Tyrone Biggums wrote on January 12, 2008 1:07 PM:

These jokers are hell-bent on starting WWIII with Iran before they get run outta office, sheesh....

epistemology wrote on January 12, 2008 1:45 PM:

It is not the legendary Filipino monkey that is making dangerous mischief in this world, but that American monkey, Bush.

Boxcutters. wrote on January 12, 2008 2:20 PM:

Could anywon help me find a link, anything on this Filipino Monkey older than 24 hours.

I think this is the tail-end of an experiment that FAILED.

Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 2:51 PM:

2:20 - Take a look at the first comment for a 1987 LA Times article.

brandon wrote on January 12, 2008 3:43 PM:

It's really all irrelevant. A couple of speedboats in open view posed no danger to those Navy Ships. If they had tried anything it would have been a suicide attack, just without the attack.

It's freaking laughable. Bush will get up in front of the media and put his serious tough face on and talk about "consequences" when nothing really happened. They are simply grasping at any excuse to try to rile up the American people and justify another war.

acf wrote on January 12, 2008 3:58 PM:

"Having seen the radios used on US Coast Guard vessels that actually identify the exact compass point of a transmission, I find it impossible to believe the US Navy can't find the source of the elusive Monkey."

If this storyline is true, could it be another case of the administration using another 'slam dunk' story to advance their agenda, in this case trying to make the case to support an invasion of Iran?

SPENCER wrote on January 12, 2008 3:58 PM:

Anonymous:
Great research, man! A 1987 LAT article? It looks like Cheney/Bush exaggerated the confrontation to get the Sunni allies to help us further in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hope the MSM catches up with this story soon.

Speedboats and Plan to Attack Iran wrote on January 12, 2008 5:07 PM:

The link "Speedboats and Plan to Attack Iran" considers the speedboats in the context of a surprise "loss of threat" in Iranian NIE Analysis uses a confidential memo sent to Rove as a framework to analyze the President's inconsistent positions in re speedboats between Dec07 and Jan08.

In the context of GOP strategy, the DNC should be prepared to have their reasonable questions about the importance of the Jan08 incident directly attacked, as preparation for GOP efforts to browbeat the DNC into supporting the President's planned military confrontation with Iran.

VHF-16 Triangulation wrote on January 12, 2008 5:24 PM:

There exist already software tools to automatically do what others suggest are impossible: Triangulation to find the source of the Filipino Monkey transmissions. Once located, this signal could be flagged for the entire Gulf: "This is a bogus threat, disregard" and share that information between the US and Iranian Navies.

If this threat were real, and chance of problem high, then US contractors would have submitted RFPs to bid on this work, and develop a capability. Issue: Why isn't the President relying on proven technology to clarify things. He appears to be appealing to confusion as was done before invasion of Iraq.

Billy Pilgrim wrote on January 12, 2008 6:44 PM:

The prankster sits in the OVP.

Skip the impeachment proceedings. Charge, try, convict, and sentsnce Bush and Cheyney for treason. Have Pelosi commute the death sentence so they can stand trial at The Hague for war crimes.

Tatterdemalian wrote on January 12, 2008 7:42 PM:

"Wny can't the US" this and "Why can't the Navy" that. Did it even occur to anyone here that the Iranian government has, for years, gone to great lengths to make sure our side has as hard a time as possible being able to identify anything about any of their armed forces? We can't get an IFF from them because they refuse to boadcast IFF signals. We can't triangulate their broadcast sources because they send orders to shore parties to turn on signal jammers the instant they notice a US vessel in the vicinity. For all we know, "Filipino Monkey" might even be a member of the Iranian armed forces, trying to start as many incidents as possible using his government's own equipment. Maybe he's even working for the Iranian governent, so they can pull another 1978 hostage crisis stunt, with the attack on the UK ship a few months ago serving as practice.

If you think all this is so damned easy to do, go do it yourselves. Uncle Sam might even thank you for it.

Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 8:07 PM:

US President, apparently, sends Tatterdemalian to provide excuses. The problem has been supposedly known since 1987, but "nothing" since 2001 to solve this "big problem."

Tatterdemalian wrote on January 12, 2008 7:42 PM:

A. Inaction in Action

Excuses not to have oversight: [Tatterdemalian: "Why can't the US" this and "Why can't the Navy" that. ] If we want to find someone who won't challenge the President, thank you for making yourself known.

B. Flawed Argument

Assertion without proof: Blame the Iranians for not cooperating with the US policies not linked with a real nuclear weapons threat [Tatterdemalian: "Did it even occur to anyone here that the Iranian government has, for years, gone to great lengths to make sure our side has as hard a time as possible being able to identify anything about any of their armed forces?' ] Oh, so NSA can't really do its job despite all that money spent since 9-11; and we gave up what rights for what non-security?

C. More Flawed Arguments

Gobbly goop: [Tatterdemalian: "We can't get an IFF from them because they refuse to boadcast IFF signals."] No, we're talking about Filipino Monkey; and whether the _US Navy_ will develop a system to find FM; the effort to find FM has nothing to do with whether Iran does or doesn't have a role in supporting FM. Let's find FM first, and then decide if he/she/it is or isn't connected with Iran or the US.

D. Appeal to Fantasy, Imagination, Super heroes

Asking us to believe the "lone" Filipino Monkey is coordinating efforts, but provides no evidence of NSA interceptions of FM to Iran: [Tatterdemalian: "We can't triangulate their broadcast sources because they send orders to shore parties to turn on signal jammers the instant they notice a US vessel in the vicinity. '} If FM were sending signals to Iran, why can't the "mighty" NSA detect them? Oh, more of the "they're so secret, we can't get them." How much money is NSA spending again; and the President was told in which PDB that there were these gaps?

E. Flawed Argument, Time to find out with oversight.

Appeal to ignorance: [Tatterdemalian: "For all we know, "Filipino Monkey" might even be a member of the Iranian armed forces, trying to start as many incidents as possible using his government's own equipment.] Last month it was the "nuclear threat from Iranian nukes, but the FM has been off the radar since 1987, now he returns. A lone monkey, dominating the free world. Not credible. Your premise asserts "We're not sure" -- then let's have some oversight of DoD, Navy, and the President.

F. Doom, Doom Dr. Rice

More fanciful mushroom-cloud-like doom and gloom: [ Tatterdemalian (corrected spelling): "Maybe he's even working for the Iranian government, so they can pull another 1978 hostage crisis stunt, with the attack on the UK ship a few months ago serving as practice.'] Maybe he traveled through time and rewrote history so that he would be in the LAT in 1987 for purposes of securing a book deal during the Writer's strike. ( I can't believe this: Tom Tomorrow satirized the same things, TPMM readers.

E. Flawed Argument: Good Excuses for Contractors?

This is called changing the subject, We admit we don't have a solution, so let's pawn the problem off to those we promised we'd solve the problem: [Tatterdemalian: "If you think all this is so damned easy to do, go do it yourselves. Uncle Sam might even thank you for it.] So you admit there is a problem, and the goofs in the US government don't have a solution; and that a public discussion of the gaps is warranted; and something needs to be done. Wow, problem since 1987, and where's the leadership?

Have the Contractors already admitted, "We've known or should have known about this foreseeable risk, but had no plan to solve this, but we still got award fees?" Time to go back and revisit the NAVSEA contracts and determine which requirements the US Contractors neglected to meet. Oh, did I say "contract oversight" and "revisiting the DOD IG office"?

John Marshall of TPM is leading the way to rake the muck, and find the truth: People are making excuses to make excuses -- just like the Iraq WMD issues.

Jimi wrote on January 12, 2008 8:08 PM:

Having read the comments let me see if I've got this straight:

The Filipino Monkey is broadcasting from 1987 with the help of Cheney in the Reagan White House?

cha cha cha wrote on January 12, 2008 8:32 PM:

maybe it was george allen. i think he's been known to use the term "flilpino monkey."

JM wrote on January 12, 2008 9:21 PM:

Huh, I thought it was Howard Cosell.

DaFunkyMaoist wrote on January 12, 2008 10:51 PM:

VHF-16 Triangulation, I'm afraid that I haven't seen anyone saying that locating a radio transmission is impossible. Selectively preventing the broadcast (or receipt of broadcasts) on an otherwise open frequency while that frequency is being used by others is the item being discussed.

I'm also confused. Is the US supposed to find Filipino Monkey via triangulation, get a bearing from DF radar receivers, or geolocate him from a DF receiver performing angle cuts?

Diane wrote on January 13, 2008 9:20 AM:

I know that its a real transmission because Glenn Beck and Fox news said so.
They are fair and balanced and they have a study to prove it.

Really, if you listen to those two, they are ready to declare WW3 based on this tape.
They did not will not and will never learn the lessons of WMD, verify, verify and then if it's a Republican president follow the money before agreeing to say a word!!!!

danger wrote on January 13, 2008 11:58 AM:

Jimi wrote on January 12, 2008 8:08 PM:

Having read the comments let me see if I've got this straight:

The Filipino Monkey is broadcasting from 1987 with the help of Cheney in the Reagan White House?

You didn't know? Cheney is in fact Highlander. Jon Stewart established this fact already.

Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 4:58 PM:

Since 1987, it was _foreseeable_ that this risk would continue, unless mitigated. Is someone inside EOP-OVP-DOJ-DoD-CIA-NSA asking us to believe:
- A. For 21 years DoD's JROC has not outlined for any President a mitigation plan; or
- B. The DoD-DoJ-OLC-EOP-OVP staff counsel who knew of the foreseeable risks, but blocked funding; and/or
- C. Congressional staff counsel who, despite this foreseeable risk, did nothing as required per 5 USC 3331: Enforce Geneva against foreseeable risks it would be violated by the President, VP, or others in the Executive Branch?

Once something is foreseeable, there is no need for a deliberation. There is no "deliberative shield" nor a need to get a waiver for a FOIA, when the "foreseeable problem" is well discussed twenty-one [21] years ago.

GOP since 1990s have controlled Congress, the funding, and would have us believe they've done nothing about this foreseeable risk? Let's get the JAG memos when this risk -- when it prompts a ruse-based war -- for them to discuss the ICC issues; and prospect the ICC could bring charges against US civilians for an alleged illegal war based on a non-imminent threat, but a ruse.

- Why is Congress inclined to "not investigate" the apparent "non action" since 1987 on this "foreseeable risk"?

- To what extent is Congress complicit with the ruses about Iran?

- Why has there been no leadership in either Houses of COngress to investigate why, since 1987, this foreseeable risk was not matched by real solutions?

- Who in Congress or EOP-OVP-DoJ OLC is arguing that there must be a "shield" for this foreseeable risk?

- How can any foreseeable risk be the subject of "uncertainty" or a "debate" requiring deliberation?

- If this information was "so valuable" related to this "foreseeable risk", why wasn't this "valuable information" retained, rather than destroyed: GOP e-mails, OVP 32 CFR 2800; WH-EOP emails, and the CIA tape destruction?

It looks more like we've had a known problem with communications interference since 1987; no leadership in the Congress or EOP-DoD to solve this; and the lawyers would have us believe the fiction that the issue was "uncertain" and could be "shielded" from FOIA discovery. Non-sense.

It looks like we've been confronted with the following:
- Alleged ruse-basis for warfare;
- Known _technical_ problem disguised as an "imminent threat", which it is not
- No leadership in Congress to investigate these _foreseeable problems_
- Judicial assent to the illusion that the Courts have "no" role in ensuring the GEneva requirements -- that of an imminent threat -- be enforced by the President, COngress, and Judicial Officers.
- Lawyers pretending information is "valuable" can "cannot be disclosed" to the COurts on this and similar issues; but them taking no action to ensure that "valuable" information is protected per WH-OVP-EOP-DOJ data retention requirements.
- Real discussions within OVP, after the Iran NIE showed the VP and President were lying about Iran since 2003, that have not been retained per 32 CFR 2800 as required.

If Geneva is not enforced, and the US Congress and President assent to illegal warfare, then US citizens can be targeted for like abuses under the principle of reciprocity. This government is using the illusion of a "threat from a monkey, not on a speedboat" as another pretext to expand illegal warfare from Iraq; and cloud the FOIA process with "uncertainty" despite the _foreseeable_ war crimes issues the JAGs well discussed in 2001; and the MCA addressed by granting funds for US persons appearing before international tribunals.

These are issues of alleged war crimes which the US Congress must confront; if the Speaker will not confront these _foreseeable_ issues known since 1987 in re the Filipino Monkey, then the GOP-DNC Members of the House who defied her on the Kucinich resolution in voting to investigate the VP -- must be supported in removing her from office, and voting as a body for a new speaker of liking to the GoP and DNC; and make way for a war crimes investigation of the VP and President.

Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 5:27 PM:

SOLUTION

Google: ""remove Pelosi"

The _illusion_ that Pelosi can block an investigation needs to end. The House, as a body, can vote to declare the Speakers position _vacant_.

1. There is no merit to any assertion that "Stoyer" will become the Next Speaker. No, it is up to the _House_ to decide. There is no succession line. The House _votes_.

2. There is no merit to any assertion that the "next" Speaker won't be any better. This presumes that Pelosi is removed. The next Speaker can be removed as well, if they block the needed/required war crimes investigation, per 5 USC 3331.

3. There is no merit to any assertion that "the DNC will not oppose Pelosi". Wrong. The _House_ is made up of both the DNC and GOP which _has_ defied her _already_ on the Kucinich resolution; and they _did_ -- for whatever reason -- vote to start an investigation.

4. There is no merit to any assertion that the "GOP has no input" to the next Speaker. Surely, if the GOP will vote to defy the Speaker on Kucinich's resolution, they will have to explain themselves why they would "support" the Speaker, and not join with some of the DNC to unseat her. Let the GOP explain it's decision not to challenge the Speaker.

5. It is irrelevant that the SEnate "might or might not" vote to convict the VP or President. These are issues of war crimes which the Members of Congress have a duty per 5 USC 3331 to enforce with investigations, not silence. The oath is there to bind them to act; the oath is to remove voluntary action, and compel action: Investigation.

6. It is fiction that "war crimes" and "issues of war" are not related to the Speaker; or that the President "cannot be constrained" by rules in re warfare. Geneva is there to bind him to comply with the laws of war, only use force where there is an imminent threat. This problem with the Filipino Monkey has been _known_ as a risk since 1987, but there is apparently _no plan_ by this President or Congress to address that confusion; they would rather allegedly support war crimes with an unlawful attack on Iran, than solve a technical problem.

This non-sense needs to end. The public voted for Change in 2006. We've been told to "mind our own business." Wrong answer: The Business of We the People is to constrain power, and protect rights. This Congress took a 5 USC 3331 oath to do that; it refuses. We voted to end this war, challenge this Congress and President, and start efforts to investigate, and if warranted, impeach the President and Vice President.

Filipino Monkey has done one thing: Made it clear this Speaker would silently assent to non-sense excuse for expanded warfare, and do nothing about alleged war crimes. Time to confront the Speaker: Either open the doors to an impeachment investigation; or the House shall openly discuss the way forward: Whether removing or not removing you is in the interest of the US Constitution, GEneva conventions, and 5 USC 3331 oath of office to investigate.

Please join the others who are saying, "remove Pelosi" as speaker; share with your friends the real prospect the GOP-DNC might form a new coalition/caucus to unseat hear; and that investigations of this VP and President might occur in re the Filipino Monkey. If We the People are not willing to assert power -- and challenge the Speaker, VP, or PResident -- then We the People have impermissibly let this US Government's inaction in re war crimes expose all of us to impermissible retaliation by other nations. This US government would put the interests of one person -- the President, VP, or Speaker -- before our _collective_ interests. That defies the principle behind the US Constitution.

If this US government will not respond to calls to _Discuss_ either war crimes, impeachment, or efforts to remove Pelosi as Speaker, now before the election -- then it is time for We the People to openly discuss a new system of governance that _will_ respond to foreseeable threats; and will _not_ pretend well known issues are "uncertain" or "under debate" and not use shields to hide evidence related to war crimes.

The time has come for the public to use the issues of the Filipino Monkey, and throw this mess back at the Speaker, VP, and President: Time for them to cooperate; and stop pretending they are "protecting" We the People. Their actions and inaction is doing the opposite: Potentially exposing all Americans to reciprocal attacks for unlawful warfare. We need some leadership in the House; if they will not give it, then We the People need to discuss a new system of oversight that will defend the US Constitution, and enforce all foreseeable risks to that document, even domestic threats from the Speaker, VP, and President.

It is time for the Speaker to be removed; and for the House to discuss _who_ will open _all_ the doors to the needed investigation into this Filipino Monkey; and the alleged ruse to expand illegal warfare. Let the House choose to act or not act; inaction is a reasonable basis for the public to conclude: "These Members of COngress are not serious about their oath, constraining power, nor fully ensuring all Geneva requirements, constraints, shields, and leashes are respected." Time for the ICC to engage this US government: Assent to Geneva. Now.

missmarple wrote on January 13, 2008 5:57 PM:

Yet this story was enough to have Huckabee threaten Iran with "Sending them to the Gates of Hell" and Thompson threaten to "send them to meet the 72 Virgins they've been looking for"
(I think Thompson had better check his facts there - I don't think Iranians believe that nonsense.)
Between their hatred for illegals and Iran - we may be in for some very scary years if a Republican gets elected. It's rather sad to hear them try to out hate each other.

Virginia wrote on January 13, 2008 6:11 PM:

I did hours of research to find out everything I could about this.

And interestingly, most of what I came up with came up from the UK press in essence. It would appear Whitehall isn't as stoopid as the US and averted all sorts of Brown manipulations by referring to their files rather than just come out jumping whilst shaking a nuclear stick. Shows you what a slightly more MATURE civilization might do.

Yes, the WH wants to politicize everything, yes they are running from war crimes prosecution, and yes, AS ALWAYS the US intel gets used by a US Pres to serve his POLITICAL aims -

But, yes, too, the goons must KNOW that eventually there must be a day when they "face" judgment .. but that said, when you really look at this whole incident you realize that this can happen over and over again. The issue goes right back to the transmissions devices themselves.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=381337&rel_no=1

have a look ..

This craziness spans decades. The Iranians were unto it a long time ago, obviously.

Question to me is: who is going to hold the cryptographic equipment manufactuer's feet to the fire? Or is that too much to ask?? Does purchasing mean caveat emptor to the US public that paid for them??

Where IS the real oversight of the AEGIS system? I couldn't find any of the over one million documents I ran through. There are 600 contractors associated with THAT mess .. who's oversighting them? OR is CONgress just too busy covering up and enjoying the cocktail circuit??

The real problem with Cheney which people have yet to figure out, is that he plays ALL sides. ALL sides, and people forget that. He's run intelligence operations for SO long, he could subvert any attempt at setting up governmental oversight, no matter WHO is demanding it. Something else has to come along to replace it or . .we're all glow worms or TOAST. Mutually assured destruction, you bet. Why should the DC addicts get to go their graves enriched at everyone else's expense? Ya can't take it with you . not EVEN if you are setting up a DYNASTY.

Personally, I just love watching these mugs on TV playing this side and that of the coming war with Iran issue as if they can come up with a solution -- those damned "experts", getting paid infotainment dollars to pundit and comment - while I know if they don't get THEIR asses in line demanding impeachment, they too will find themselves going out feet first in a box prematurely or being enscounced in plastic bags as they melted in the nuclear flames in the end.

Good ole boy Cheney has said, he'll leave office standing up, having served his whole (self-appointed) term.

Okay, but make SURE that is in handcuffs and leg irons when he goes. NO RETIREMENT TO DUBAI. And no Paraquay get aways either, protected by US intelligence goons for puppetboy. The US treasury is looted and we shouldn't have to pay another cent to "protect" that lunatic.
The imperial president and his his goon of an adviser sure have been expensive, haven't they?? 10,000 Israeli's protected BuZh in Israel .. now I think that is MUCK and a half. Way beyond the PPTB (pass me the barf bag) stage.

Here's a little fuel to add to the fire: it's said that AFTER they've looted the Treasury, propped up their banking pals (and Dick must have a short list of those to be saved), social security looted, pension funds stolen, then they move onto ebay monies, paypal and every other sort of fund with any money left to keep paying for the wars. The PROMIS system tells them EXACTLY where to look for money and so do all those nice, new banking laws designed to catch "terrorists". Hank has complete control of all that info. NIIIIIIII Ce.

2008 is the year EVERYBODY's gonna get pissed off, believe me. The outting of the secrets was the task of 2007.

I have no wish to see HiLIARy sign my order to go to a FEMA camp (yes, they have them here in Canada, too!) - we MUST push for impeachment and war criminal accountability. That's how I see it.
(Be sure to listen to that Dr. Michael Hudson podcast, btw. Then you'll "get" it.)

OH, and as last thought before I go on my merry way, has anyone actually watched the Hank Paulson videos, I mean looked closely? I wondered if he was on methampetine now, as he cannot follow a single thought put to him. But the most recent video I saw, he looks like he is JONESING. Any thoughts? (I have a real nice one of Condi popping a pill before testifying in CONgress .. )

Mark Laustrup wrote on January 13, 2008 9:23 PM:

When I first heard about the pissing match, the first thought that came to mind was a cartoon depicting Cheney in a closet. With one hand on his crank and a microphone in the other, he babbled the now-famous missive. Any good cartoonist out there?

Andrew P wrote on January 14, 2008 12:49 AM:

Sounds to me like this prankster and his imitators transmit only for short periods of time, which will make it hard to accurately triangulate on them. Also the frequency is in use by many people, which also makes it hard. I'm sure Navy radiomen have some idea of where the pranksters are, whether they are on a ship or on shore, but probably don't know much more than that.

John of gCaptain wrote on January 14, 2008 7:54 AM:

I did a story on this for our Maritime News Blog at gCaptain.com One reader comment was especially informative:

"The term ‘monkey’ is considered exceedingly derogatory by Filipinos. The line from an old American song: “The monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga is often trotted out as an example of a racial slur (Wrongly as it happens). I know of a bookstore clerk who nearly got punched after, quite innocently, referring to a mischievous Filipino child as ‘a little Monkey’.

I have no doubt this tale will be picked up by the press here and blown out of proportions.

Yes, Filipinos are oversensitive, I’ll admit that, but this sort of bilge goes beyond the pale."

You can read the entire post wrtten by a ship's Captain here:
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/the-gorilla-from-manilla-strikes-again-filipino-monkeeeeey/

Captain John wrote on January 14, 2008 7:57 AM:

I did a story on this for our Maritime News Blog at gCaptain.com One reader comment was especially informative:

"The term ‘monkey’ is considered exceedingly derogatory by Filipinos. The line from an old American song: “The monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga is often trotted out as an example of a racial slur (Wrongly as it happens). I know of a bookstore clerk who nearly got punched after, quite innocently, referring to a mischievous Filipino child as ‘a little Monkey’.

I have no doubt this tale will be picked up by the press here and blown out of proportions.

Yes, Filipinos are oversensitive, I’ll admit that, but this sort of bilge goes beyond the pale."

You can read the entire post wrtten by a ship's Captain here:
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/the-gorilla-from-manilla-strikes-again-filipino-monkeeeeey/

bob h wrote on January 14, 2008 9:36 AM:

With the US accusing Iran of acts of war and terrorism, it is probably safe to assume that the reverse is true. What covert operations might the US be conducting against Iran? Might these be the source of Iranian touchiness, as was the case back in 1964 off North Vietnam?