I've been thinking about these agents, and what it all means.
In Ontario, Canada, the law about police identifying themselves is really straightforward:
- (1) A police officer shall not deliberately conceal any of the following information that is part of their uniform or is otherwise required to be displayed:
- The officer’s name.
- The officer’s badge number.
- The name of the officer’s police service.
(2) While acting in the course of their duties, a police officer shall, upon request, provide their name, badge number and the name of their police service to any member of the public in a manner reasonable in the circumstances that allows the member of the public to identify the officer, unless the officer has reason to believe that doing so would undermine the safety of an individual.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r23407
In France "Police officers must clearly display their identification number badge". In Germany "you have the right to ask for the police officer's identity card and to write down their details"
But, apparently in California the rules are a lot weaker:
“Any uniformed peace officer shall wear a badge, nameplate, or other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer.” But, this allows for them to wear a badge or nameplate, and then wear something over top of it, or obscuring it. In addition "Neither California nor federal law explicitly mandates that officers must identify themselves." I mean, that's pretty fucked up to begin with.
I can understand that because doxxing is relatively easy, a criminal might find out a cop's home address if the officer has to give their full name on request. So, maybe in 2025 an officer giving out their full name might be a legitimate problem, especially if they have an unusual name. But, how can you expect to have a reasonable society if police don't need to provide any identification on request?
The very concept of badge numbers is about trusting cops. Badge Numbers come from Collar Numbers, used on the collars of Metropolitan Police in London. Robert Peel introduced those in the 1860s to increase accountability and gain public trust. Those original numbers were short and easy to read, just 3 numbers, and being on the collars of the uniform they were very easy to see at all times. So, even someone almost illiterate might be able to use them when filing a complaint. In the modern world, badge numbers seem like the perfect compromise between the public's right to know if someone is a legitimate cop, and to have a permanent ID for them, and the officer's right to avoid having their family put in danger by being doxxed.
It seems like there's some effort in California to make police identify themselves, the No Secret Police Act prevents cops from covering their faces, and requires that they be identifiable by their uniform. IMO it should also require that they verbally identify themselves if asked. If a cop is say, kneeling on a guy's chest, you might not be able to see their name / badge number.
As for the "Secret Police", it really seems ICE is 90% of the way there. Wikipedia defines it as:
Secret police (or political police) are police, intelligence, or security agencies that engage in covert operations against a government's political, ideological, or social opponents and dissidents... They protect the political power of a dictator or regime and often operate outside the law to repress dissidents and weaken political opposition, frequently using violence. They may enjoy legal sanction to hold and charge suspects without ever identifying their organization.
When Rumeysa Ozturk was snatched in Boston by a guy in a sweatshirt, tossed into an unmarked van and driven away, look how many elements of "Secret Police" that checked off right there:
- Covert Operation: check. They were not wearing uniforms and didn't use a police car
- Repress dissidents and weaken political opposition: check. She was legally here on a student visa, and had done nothing more than exercise her free speech rights, but she said something that went against what the government likes, so she was snatched.
- Operate outside the law: check. She had not broken any laws. She was legally in the US on a student visa. The only thing she had done was say pro-Palestinian things, which falls squarely in the free speech category.
- Legal sanction to hold and charge suspects without ever identifying their organization: half check? In this case they did pull out badges and lanyards after they grabbed her, but before they threw her in an unmarked van. For a full check they'd have to have never identified themselves at all.
The only parts of the Secret Police definition that the ICE agents haven't yet fully checked is going completely without ID of any kind, and the direct use of violence. Although there has been violence associated with their arrests, they've used excessive force, and a lot of the detention facilities seem to involve low-intensity torture, that's not quite the normal "secret police" trick of jumping out of a van and beating the shit out of somebody then driving off, or grabbing someone, hauling them off to a torture site, pulling out their fingernails, then dumping them somewhere, etc. But hey, it has only been 6 months so, who knows what's next.
If the US survives the next 3.5 years, it really seems like a nationwide policing reform is necessary, on top of everything else. They should really start with Peelian Principles that are designed to have an ethical police force so that you can have "policing by consent".
But, until then, drive them out of those jobs. They do not have the public's consent. It doesn't matter if they're "just following orders". When those orders are illegitimate, that means that they are not legitimate figures of authority, they're illegitimately using violence, and can expect just about anything including violence in return.