Talk:List of secret police organizations/Archive 1

Soviet Union

What were the secret police of the Soviet Union called? NeoChrono Ryu 01:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

See List of historical secret police organizations. -- Necrothesp 13:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

SS

Should the SS (Nazi military group) be on this list? I don't know enough about them to know whether they are secret police material ot just an elite military group. NeoChrono Ryu 01:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No. The Gestapo, who were secret police, were all members of the SS, but the SS itself was not a secret police organisation. In any case, organisations that no longer exist are listed on List of historical secret police organizations, not here. -- Necrothesp 12:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Updates

Some of the agnecies listed clearly belong on the "Historical" page, EG. Taiwan's entry describes an agency that no longer exists. 68.39.174.238 01:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

FBI and NSA

Neither the FBI or the NSA are secret police organizations as defined under the secret police wikipedia entry.

Deleting USA

I'm deleting the USA entries because the US agencies don't meet the definition and their conduct, despite accusations of such, is far from the usual purposes of secret polic which, rougly, is policing dissidents.Atcavage 04:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia says: "Secret police are a police organization which operates in secrecy to maintain national security against internal threats to the state." Therefore which part of this definition contradicts with United States Secret Service? CIA and FBI are not secret police, that is true, but Secret Service conforms to definition. --78.0.86.174 10:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how the USSS operates in secret different from any other dignitary protection service, or treasury police agency. Just because it has 'secret' in it's name doesn't mean that it's a secret police agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atcavage (talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You are basing your view of American police organizations entirely on your domestic bias. You don't want to admit that there are organizations in the USA which meet the definitions of a secret police agency. Under the Patriot Act, this is ever more the case with the CIA and the NSA. Also, the USSS is indeed a police organization and would meet the definition. Stop denying that the USA has these agencies as well.--174.102.201.14 (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Police are not the same as secret police. I quote: "Secret police (sometimes political police) are a police agency which operates in secrecy to protect the power and authority of a political regime or state." The Secret Service does not actually operate in secrecy. Pretty much all of their work is anti-counterfeiting, which has just about nothing to do with that definition. They really are not at all secret police.

Also, what is your basis for saying the CIA and the NSA are secret police organizations? Do you have sources? Keep in mind that they are not legally allowed to arrest anybody at all, especially not in the US. Generalcp702^{user talk} 23:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What, is kidnapping and torturing American citizens not the sort of thing a secret police organization does? Have we forgotten people like Jose Padilla? Ironically, the page on secret police that links to this list has a picture of Stasi mail-opening machine. NSA wiretapping programs have read far more private correspondence than the Stasi ever did. 75.45.226.98 (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is evidence of secret police behavior in the US: "Congress did not allow for aggrieved Americans to sue the government, even if their constitutional rights were violated by the United States breaching its own wiretapping laws." http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/appeals-court-oks-wiretapping/ Honestly, there is enough evidence about this to build an entire page, anyone denying it simply hasn't bothered to investigate the issue. USA should be on the list.

Adding South Korea

South Korea have secrect police organization under Korean National Police Agency. --Korsentry 06:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

"When in doubt, cut it out." Secret Service isn't secret, British Military Intelligence does not function as police, but I'm not sure about Ireland's G2 -- were they somehow linked to the IRA???Dfoofnik (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Britain's secret police

Britain definitely has secret police nowadays; I remeber reading a piece on how police have infiltrated protest networks to disrupt the protests' organisation. Also in London there are loads of secret police cars that are just posing as normal cars and then prosecute people for fairly trivial, everyday crimes. The same is also true of Britain's use of security cameras(which is has the most in the world per capita), these are always used to prosecute people for driving in the bus lanes and not paying the congestion charge. Equally, the security tapes always go conveniently missing if when there is the question of police brutality etc. In fact, just look at the Mass Surveillance article. How you can call the Chinese Ministry of State Security a secret police force and not the British one is beyond me, or have they gotten to you too!? 91.104.82.251 (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the UK Forward Intelligence Team as it does not meet the criteria of a Secret police organisation. An FIT is simply two or more fully uniformed police officers who are deployed by UK police forces to gather overt surveillance during protests etc. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 21:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Bundesnachrichtendienst

Why is the Bundesnachrichtendienst listed? They certainly aren't a "secret police" organization today. If it is because of their previous incarnation under East Germany, then that should be noted as the reason.--Davidwiz (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A useless article

This article should be renamed "list of domestic police or intelligence organizations in countries we don't like", since that seems to be the only real criterion for listing. Zero^talk 06:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

While I have yet to find reliable citations to prove that the UK or US had such organisations, this article needs to have some guidelines is certainly in violation of WP:NPOV: guidelines could include:

• Routine use of torture against dissidents during interrogation.
• Routine use of forced disappearance against dissidents.
• Pervasive use of mass surveillance, specifically in order to suppress dissent.

Routine and Dissent are keywords here, such as pervasive detention of journalists in the case of Turkey. Other ideas? --Marianian^(talk) 16:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There's simply no way to document an effective disappearance or suppression of information. This may or may not happen to an unknown number of people who are tortured each year, so how do we define "routine"? By the number of times a story gets out? By that measure, a relatively accountable police force (say, the LAPD) might have the same number of reported tortures (or more) as whichever mysterious force leads the world in all three of those categories. That hardly seems fair to the LAPD (or whoever we're grading). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is the FSB listed if the FBI are not listed?

My understanding is that the Russian FSB carry out the same duties as the American FBI, I am open to correction. People may believe they are an external, foreign intelligence organisation however I believe that is the remit of both GRU and SVR and not FSB, again I am open to correction. If no replies to the contrary I will consider there being no objections and will delete the FSB entry. If there are objections to potential deletion please express your factually based opinions. Mandz orp (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)