Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by on Wednesday December 21 2016, @05:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the gun-control dept.

The day after Inner City Press asked both US Ambassador Samantha Power and UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the UN Mission in South Sudan giving automatic weapons to warlord James Koang, who killed civilians, a new UN outrage was brought to the attention of Inner City Press and after its publishing and asking about it (video here), was confirmed by the UN.

Since the UN covered up its arming of South Sudan warlord Koang, and refuses to answer written questions including about its use of public funds, we published this report on this we'll follow up:

The UN Assistance Mission in Iraq, UNAMI, under the authority of the UN Department of Safety and Security (DSS), have "lost" 25 weapons from their armory in their base in the Green Zone in Baghdad.

The loss includes 18 Glock 9mm pistols, 5 G36 assault rifles, and 2 G36 sniper rifles. Sources say that 10,000s of thousands of rounds of ammunition are also missing.

DSS only discovered or internally acknowledged this months after the fact and cannot account for their loss. The UN's Fijian Guard Unit have had to start patrolling inside the base.

Source: Inner City Press
Related: Small Arms Survey Sudan [PDF]

Washington Post: Report: U.N. gave arms to South Sudan rebels later implicated in massacre


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22 2016, @10:57AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22 2016, @10:57AM (#444679)

    so why can't you see that it's probably a bad idea to give one organization a monopoly on violence? Indeed, that's the worst sort of monopoly.

    The worst sort of monopoly except for the others. Your "successful" governments all have a monopoly on violence. The difference is they have a separation of entities in deciding on how and when to use that violence.

    If a country's government does not have a monopoly on violence and there are many other entities going around killing people and getting away with it then it's not a successful government at all.

    If a government cannot maintain a monopoly on violence it means it is not really in power. There are various degrees of course as there are various degrees of being in power.