UN Security Stonewalls on Drugs, Bombs & Noose, Crackdown on Amorous?

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, May 8 -- While UN Security's high officials have yet to provide any update on the 14 kilos of cocaine transferred from the UN to the New York Police Department as exposed by Inner City Press earlier this year, nor on incidents involving bomb sniffing dogs and a hangman's noose found in the UN, they are prepared to crackdown on two UN Security officers found in flagrante delicto in the UN Library, multiple sources tell Inner City Press.

  Some of these sources urged Inner City Press to tread cautiously with this story, given the propensity to retaliate among UN brass under Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. But others said a factual presentation would help the officers in question.

  According to these sources, the two UN Security officers were stumbled upon in the women's bathroom of the UN's Dag Hammarskjold Library by a person going to use the facilities after a yoga session. Other Security was called; the incident is now well known within UN Security, with concern of over-discipline.

  Under the UN-like rubric of "Make Love, Not War," we'll note that this incident created substantially less danger than the decision, when a UN bomb sniffing dog three times barked when a vehicle from the delivery company aptly known as TNT arrive, to send the vehicle back out into New York City traffic.

  Similarly, the hangman's noose that was found was a symbol of hate, not love. But nothing seems to have been done about that. After Inner City Press asked and wrote the story, the UN replied:

Subject: Your question at the Noon Briefing
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:51 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

On your question about a noose: The Safety and Security Service is aware of this matter. An investigation was launched immediately, and that investigation is being finalised. For that reason we cannot say more at this stage.

  And nothing has been said since. Watch this site.

  This week Inner City Press received and answered a number of questions about UN Security:

Reading the transcripts of a couple press conferences back in January, I saw you asking some tough questions about what seemed like a pattern of events involving suspicious packages detected by dogs. How would you put the drug package incident into the context of security issues at the UN?

 The combination of the UN's legal immunity and its leadership's lack of transparency make it a soft target, so to speak, for drug trafficking and other malfeasance.

 I learned of the 14 kilos of cocaine only through a lower level UN Security source -- the package had been found (by a fluke, it seems to me) and quietly turned over to NYPD. Nothing would ever have been said about it.

 After I wrote about it and then raised it in a noon briefing, Ban Ki-moon's spokesman's office and UN Security decided to come out with a story, that someone 14 kilos of cocaine in the UN, in a bag (badly) marked "UN" somehow didn't have anything to do with the UN. I think this remains a dubious theory. Frankly, they should have waited to see who might come and try to PICK UP the cocaine.

My research led me to an earlier drug case, of khat in the UN mailroom, on which the UN stonewalled.

 Then UN Security source came and told me of the barking of the bomb sniffing dogs -- and vehicle sent right back out into New York City -- and also of a noose, which UN Security belatedly said it was investigating, with no update yet.

As I understand it, the investigative premise is that some guy in a drug cartel started putting together a fake diplomatic package, but then DHL picked up the package before it was ready. What are your thoughts on this hypothesis?

 What it seems to me is that someone knew that DHL will deliver any package with a UN logo on it to the UN, and so this was used -- they should have waited to see who would come and try to pick up the package.

What can we learn from this incident about the UN's relationship with its host city and country?

 That the UN would, in the second bomb sniffing dog, went a vehicle which a dog had barked at back out into the city shows some contempt for City and its residents. Also not letting an NYC ambulance easily in -- recently I covered a story where an audio engineer had a seizure and ambulance was not immediately let into treat him. Think what this means for people inside the UN on tours -- and even for diplomats...

After UN Cocaine Exclusive Press Asks of Bomb Squad Inaction, "Noose Cover Up"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 30, updated Jan 31, 10:40 am -- With the UN yet to answer the questions of Inner City Press, which exclusively broke last week's story about 14 kilograms of cocaine in the UN mail room, other UN Security whisteblowers have come forward with troubling tales, of racism and what they call lax response to packages identified by bomb sniffing dogs.

Inner City Press was informed, and at Monday's UN noon briefing asked, about an incident this month in which three separate UN bomb sniffing dogs "sat down" -- conveying suspicious -- about a package brought in by a courier service by the name of TNT.

But, the UN Security whistleblowers say, "the bomb squad was never called by the command." Rather, the TNT courier was allowed or told to take the suspicious package out of the UN, out onto the streets of New York.

Last week after breaking the cocaine story on the morning of January 26, Inner City Press asked the UN why instead of waiting to see who might come and pick up the 14 kilograms of cocaine in the UN mail room, it was spirited so quickly out of the building with the UN claiming it had "no UN connection."

That question, and follow up or even admission of the arrest in 2006 of an employee in the UN mail room after an indictment for drug trafficking, has still not been answered.

In light of the UN's failure to provide any answers about the bomb threat, five hours and counting after the Q&A transcribed below, Inner City Press now posts as a matter of public concern another complain received from inside the UN:

"In the month of January 2012 a Security officer in the UN in New York discovered a 'hangman's noose'... in an office in the North Lawn Building... in view of other staff members and visitors to the UN. The UN.... is trying to keep it out of the media. Is this the respect for diversity and human rights the UN is practicing at headquarters? They why should the world listen to them?"

We'd like to have Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson's office's (or DSS') answer to these charges, but there seems to be a back-up in answers, or the patterns of cover-ups alleged in the complaint above.

DSS Greg Starr & bags: bomb dogs etc not shown (c) MRLee

As background, in 2006 a UN staffer was said to have drawn swastikas but, UN insiders say, was "protected by Bruno Henn" of UN Security, and only given sensitivity training.

From the UN's transcription of its January 30 noon briefing:

Inner City Press: I want to ask a security question, it’s following up on last week’s 14 kilograms of cocaine story. First, some other security individuals have stepped forward and said that this month, January, there was three separate UN bomb sniffing dogs sat down, i.e., identified a package that arrived in the mail room as being problematic and asked that the bomb squad be called, and rather than that happen, the package was allowed to drive off to parts unknown. They have a deep concern that there is something wrong with the way in which security is dealing with the mail thing, it is the same question of why the 14 kilograms of cocaine were spirited out of the building before waiting to see who would pick them up... The final thing is I got the answer, there is a 2006 indictment of a UN mail room employee, it was a pretty big case in which he was distributing khat from Somalia throughout the United States, it’s a federal indictment. So I wondered, you said that they were unaware of any arrests, maybe they didn’t understand, was there some limited time frame they were looking at or are they unaware that that took place?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Do you recall what was the outcome of that case, Matthew?

Inner City Press: No, he was arrested; my question was [about arrests,] you wrote back and said they are unaware of any arrests.

Spokesperson: As I said, I would like to ask further about that, and that’s what I did. When I have something, I will let you know.

Inner City Press: On this other one, they have a concern and apparently they are not able to address it internally for whatever reason. And it seems [it could impact] all of us. I am saying this idea that if a package identified as potentially containing explosives is identified by UN security, is the protocol to actually check the package or just let it go, you know, continue on freely on the streets of New York?

Spokesperson: Let me check, Matthew. Okay, thanks very much.

But after nine hours and counting, there was no answer at all. Watch this site.

Update of January 31, 2012, 10:45 am -- more than twenty hours after the questions were asked, this came in which we publish in full:

Date: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:05 AM
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] @un.org
Subject: Your question on security
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

On your questions yesterday on security:

- We do not discuss the specifics of security screening for rather obvious reasons.

- The Security and Safety Service has made it clear that no package that is identified as potentially hazardous by dogs or other screening methods is allowed into the premises or to proceed without further investigation. In all such cases action is taken.

We'll have more on all this.