There's a big difference between undercover police officers and officers who are overtly police but refuse to identify themselves.

The famous "We don't need no stinking badges" line was spoken by a character who led a band of Mexican bandits posing as Federales.

When bandits become indistinguishable from cops, cops become indistinguishable from bandits.

Investigator vs Enforcer.

Enforcers should should be clearly identifiable.

That's my thought soldiers not in uniform have no legal protection under the rules of war. They can just be summarily shot for all the law cares.

That’s absolutely untrue. Unlawful combatants have less rights under the law of war, but no one is allowed to summarily execute them.

Sure, and they both fall into this category:

>Police who refuse to identify themselves and carry no markings used against an administration's political opponents

That's not the only distinction that matters though. Investigators are assigned to specific crimes. Their job is gathering evidence, not enforcing laws.

The point to needing to identify police is that without that rule and the accountability that comes with it the "police" become just another gang on the streets. None of that is relevant to investigatory law enforcement.

Obviously both kinds of anonymity can be abused, but only one has an easy and obvious solution.

Seriously: no one sane thinks that riot cops should be operating in street clothes and refusing to identify themselves. This whole subthread is a ridiculous digression.