zlacker

>>Kapura+(OP)
Police who refuse to identify themselves and carry no markings used against an administration's political opponents sure sounds like something everyone should be opposed to, no matter their political camp.

If someone thinks that's a healthy part of a democracy, I'd be real curious about your reasoning.

>>Pfhrea+7u
I think the principle is pretty broadly recognized. As I understand it, international law would treat them as unlawful combatants. Use of irregular troops against a civilian population falls pretty much smack dab into the middle of what most people recognize as terrorism.

The only problem is that international law doesn't govern how a country conducts activities on their own people. But it reflects a widespread consensus nonetheless.

Note: I'm not accusing the police of terrorism -- that would be pretty massively inflammatory and not my intent -- but simply giving examples to support a widespread discomfort with using non-uniformed forces.

>>analog+FN
As you note, police are not subject to the laws of war -- they routinely use devices (pepper spray, tear gas, hollow-point bullets) that would be war crimes were they to be used in an armed conflict.

This is not problematic on the face of it -- police are expected to use non-lethal tactics whenever possible, and the laws of war are hugely biased towards killing rather injuring because overwhelming your opponent with casualties is considered inhumane in war.