Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 739 posts

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#301

Post by semi-extrinsic »

failingslowly wrote: post #286
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #107

Article 77 of the Korean Constitution: "1. When it is required to cope with a military necessity or to maintain the public safety and order by mobilization of the military forces in time of war, armed conict or similar national emergency, the President may proclaim martial law as prescribed by law. 2. Martial law shall be of two types, extraordinary martial law and precautionary martial law. 3. Under extraordinary ma…

Sorry for the slight tangent, but I noticed the "conict" typo in your quote. Selecting article 77 in the pdf you linked to selects everything but the "fl" in "conflict". How odd.

That's PDF ligatures for you.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#302

Post by Eumenes »

anon291 wrote: post #212
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that really as true as it used to be since COVID? A number of governments enacted quite astonishingly repressive measures Zero countries in the West enacted anything resembling martial law. The only freedoms abridged were those of movement and assembly, and even then the penalty was being shut down or ticketed, rarely jail, never summary execution.

[flagged]

Canada, UK, NZ, and Australia had absolutely draconian polices related to COVID.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#303

Post by corgihamlet »

failingslowly wrote: post #286
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #107

Article 77 of the Korean Constitution: "1. When it is required to cope with a military necessity or to maintain the public safety and order by mobilization of the military forces in time of war, armed conict or similar national emergency, the President may proclaim martial law as prescribed by law. 2. Martial law shall be of two types, extraordinary martial law and precautionary martial law. 3. Under extraordinary ma…

Sorry for the slight tangent, but I noticed the "conict" typo in your quote. Selecting article 77 in the pdf you linked to selects everything but the "fl" in "conflict". How odd.

Probably got turned into some strange ligature by the typesetting program.

conflict vs conflict

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#304

Post by anon291 »

kube-system wrote: post #291
anon291 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? That may have been true a few years ago during the COVID lockdowns, but as we've recently seen, Americans will often punish that behavior heavily at the poll booth

It wasn't even true then. The COVID lockdowns were child's play compared to the abuses of freedom in the US's past, and they're a mere suggestion compared to the lockdowns in other places around the world. Anyone who thinks the government asking you sternly to "please stay inside" is an abuse of power must have fallen asleep in American history class. Or have never talked to their grandparents about politics in the p…

If something has to be worse than slavery in order to qualify as an abuse of freedom, then nothing is going to qualify ever.

> Anyone who thinks the government asking you sternly to "please stay inside" is an abuse of power

American states jailed pastors, fined churches, and charged individuals with violations of 'laws' against things like worshipping together or assembling.

> must have fallen asleep in American history class.

Site rules :)

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#305

Post by JumpCrisscross »

anon291 wrote: post #294
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> various takes i've read in newspapers about why people are fed up and desire change They made less money. I'm looking forward to the next two years: I and everyone in my friend circle are going to make a lot of money. Even if we do nothing. > if you have to appeal to SCOTUS to un-suspend it, it's safe to say that it was suspended You're using a judiciary striking down an unconstitutional law as an example of martia…

So we've gone from 'no rights were suspended' to 'rights were suspended but if you successfully got them un-suspended they were never really suspended before.'.

> we've gone from 'no rights were suspended' to 'rights were suspended but if you successfully got them un-suspended they were never really suspended before.'.

Who said no rights were suspended? You're arguing with yourself [1].

The wrong statement made at the head was that we had martial law in the West during Covid. We did not. Not even close. If civilian courts can overrule anything, you're not under martial law.

(Also, every state is constantly passing laws that are struck down, if this is your standard for martial law then everyone is always under martial law and the term is meaningless.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#306

Post by anon291 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #292
anon291 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Martial law is the imposition of punishments without due process. In no world can one argue that being under the equivalent of house arrest is not a punishment. To impose that punishment carte-blanche on anyone who's traveled domestically is a form of martial law.

> Martial law is the imposition of punishments without due process No it's not. > being under the equivalent of house arrest is not a punishment Where were you? I was in New York City and travelled to Tennesse and California and London and Frankfurt in 2020. I went running every other day.

[flagged]

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#308

Post by xyst »

jmyeet wrote: post #173

South Korea is dying. It has the lowest birth rate in the world: ~0.78 children per woman. If you want to know what that means, take 100 people (50 men, 50 women). In 3 generations there are... 6 people. That's population collapse. Every developed nation is barreling towards this fate. It's what end stage capitalism and 5 chaebols-in-a-trenchcoat as a government looks like. The only thing preventing population collap…

[flagged]

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#309

Post by dmix »

tacheiordache wrote: post #68
maeil wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost everyone in Korea is completely shocked, including most people who voted for him in the presedential elections. This is in a country where no one bats an eye even when sirens go off.

[flagged]

There must be some rule on the internet where if some geopolitical thing happens anywhere in the world at least one person will blame Russia.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#310

Post by anon291 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #305
anon291 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we've gone from 'no rights were suspended' to 'rights were suspended but if you successfully got them un-suspended they were never really suspended before.'.

> we've gone from 'no rights were suspended' to 'rights were suspended but if you successfully got them un-suspended they were never really suspended before.'. Who said no rights were suspended? You're arguing with yourself [1]. The wrong statement made at the head was that we had martial law in the West during Covid. We did not. Not even close. If civilian courts can overrule anything, you're not under martial law.…

You said:

> Martial law in America would mean suspending the Constitution.

I pointed out that constitutional rights were suspended. Thus, by your logic, martial law was declared.

Then, after making the simple claim above you continually change the goal posts. First, martial law is suspension of the constitution. Then, it's suspension of the constitution and the inability to appeal to courts.

Pick one. If it's simply suspending the constitution... then we saw that. But you've changed the goal posts, not me.

Post reply on HN