this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
590 points (98.2% liked)
Political Memes
8057 readers
2618 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm sorry, every time I read a comparison between secret police and plain clothes officers, I feel obligated to post this rant:
If you believe that "plainclothes officers" are the same as secret police, you know jack shit about the Gestapo, the Stasi and MSS or even ICE, all of which are undoubtedly secret police forces.
Officers in plain clothes are just that, they are a part of the normal law-enforcement operation, operate under the law and report to normal chiefs, normal prosecutors and normal courts, inside constitutional limits. Even if the justice system is rigged, racist, out of whack, and heavily skewed, they still operate inside of it, they're just sneaky about it.
Secret police on the other hand are often embedded as special units in organizations that otherwise operate as intelligence services and are therefore not easily recognizable to outsiders. A secret police force is an entirely different animal than just a couple of sneaky police officers. They are a quintessential feature of authoritarian regimes. Either de facto or even de jure unbound by constitutional limits, they are a tool of political repression and preemptive, unlawful violence. They are the ones who disappear people, they often run their own secret prisons and interrogation centers.
The fact that ICE is more and more morphing into a secret police service is FAR more alarming than the existence of plain clothes officers in the US.
That by definition makes it lawful and by definition is operating "inside of it".
Wouldn't a law that exempts a law enforcement agency from constitutional limits be an unconstitutional law - and therefore an illegal law - and therefore not lawful?
In theory, yes.
In practice, 'its legally complicated' and 'what have you done for me lately' and 'you and what army?'
Governments work untill they don't.
We are currently in a Constitutional crisis, a coup, a fascist takeover, call it what you will.
In this situation, some of, or maybe even all of the laws and rules and norms operate by Whose Line Is It Anyway standards: The rules are made up and the points don't matter.
The fun part is that theres no real way to predict precisely which rules and norms will matter, in what contexts, when, both as a citizen or subject of a government, or as some kind of official or representative acting within it.
What you mean is that a 'secret police' is legally allowed to not have to follow laws that normally apply to other citizens or government agents, and thus, they are operating legally.
This is correct.
It is also correct that the secret police essentially become a class unbound by laws that apply to others, normally, and that this distinguishes them from other classes of people.
Mhm, yep.
Yep, these are both correct, if you have a secret police, your society has another tier, another class of people with anothet set of legal rights and responsibilities.
Historically, that is quite common, with women often having far fewer legal rights, with slaves or various underclasses having less rights, yep yep yep.
All of that is and was 'legal' by the legal standards of those societies.
By that definition all police are secret police. Hell, most government workers due to qualified/complete immunity.
So, I didn't give a new definition of secret police.
The original commenter gave a definition, you commented on that definition, I commented on your comment.
And with the original definition, the part that you highlighted, that secret police agencies have been given legal authority or priveleges that allow them to effectively ignore or be largely immune to many other laws....
Basically yes, obviously, that is indeed how it has been for a long time.
Basically all policing bodies in the US have historically and currently have to ability to operate with a level of undercover secrecy.
General police in the US have had qualified immunity, ability to do civil asset foreitures with no accountability... tons of other legal priveleges and leeway exceeding that of most other citizens for... longer than I've been alive.
All that is happening now is that certain law enforcement bodies are having even more legal limitations removed, legal protections added, either de facto or de jure.
...
Am I missing something?
Are you saying anything more than... certain law enforcement agencies are legally permitted and allowed to not play by the same rules as everyone else?
Are you under the false impression that that has ever not been the case?
...
It is totally sophormoric to point out that a law can be passed or an order can be given to allow certain people to not be held to certain other laws, thus what those certain special people do is legal, so they're not technically criminals.
This is basically just word games.
The actual interesting part is the power differential between the different legal classes of people, who watches the watchers, how is oversight done, is this ethical, what should be done to remove loopholes like this, what should be done to remove the ability to create loopholes like this, etc.
...
If you pass a law or give an order that effectively says 'all other laws don't apply to this group of people', and then the rest of the legal system, even if it decides that law is unconstitional, is illegal...
If the rest of the legal system cannot actually get that special group of people to respect their bounded, limited powers, with the 'no laws apply to you' law declared null and void...
Then it doesn't matter what the rest of the legal system thinks, it doesn't matter what 'legal' and 'illegal' even mean, because their very meanings are now contentious and only enforceable by naked, unaccountable powerful groups or persons who will essentially just personally decide what legal reasoning they agree with, thus making the entire legal system effectively neutered on that level.
I am saying plainclothes officers are absolutely a form of secret police, and regular police are arguably a form of secret police. I didn't think that before but you and Enkrod have unintentionally made a very strong argument that is the case.
You are correct it's all just word games, but it's a game that seems to have you pretty riled up. Why?
Ah, good! We agree on that then =D
I have a degree in Poli Sci and have written papers (as course work, not academically published in journals) on topics like this.
Beyond that, I'm Autistic, a bit of a stickler for details, and enjoy infodumping.
... And I am currently physically maimed, will probably be more or less bedridden for the next 6 months or so, aside from Physical Therapy appointments... so I have arguably too much free time.
Oof that sucks I'm sorry to hear that. Thank you for explaining that, I was trying to understand where the disagreement was and was getting really confused. Good luck on the recovery!
I am no longer in utterly unbearable, constant pain, and I am improving... still in a lot of pain, but it is lessening, and my range of motion is improving, I can get around with a cane now instead of needing a wheelchair... its a whole bunch of really messed up muscles and tendons at this point, bone fractures have healed now.
Thank you for the well wishes =D
That is some impressive mental gymnastics.
What does "de jure" mean?
'De facto' means roughly 'in actual practice' or 'effectively', whereas 'de jure' means 'explicitly spelled out in the letter of the law, the orders of a judge, etc.'
If there is a law that says 'cryptocurrencies are all banned', but there are no penalties for using or holding them, no enforcement agency in charge of finding and prosecuting cryptocurrency users...
Then crypto is 'de jure' illegal, but it is 'de facto' legal.
Like, we have lots and lots of tax laws, but the IRS basically never enforces all the relevant ones against very wealthy people.
Thus, for very wealthy people, much tax evasion and many forms of fraud are 'de facto' legal, despite being 'de jure' illegal.