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

481–490 of 739 posts

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

#481

Post by jumping_frog »

brvsft wrote: post #344
aurareturn wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eight replies to my post and no one has mentioned China yet. Has China been accepted as a "real" enemy? To me, China is the main virtual enemy that politicians trout out to create fear and distraction.

I agree, although it is a "real" enemy in the sense that their ascension is a threat to US hegemony or the idea of the USA as the preeminent world superpower. I don't see it as rational, but there is definitely an argument that the USA ought to remain positioned as number one, having the ability to dictate global politics. I don't think we deserve it, but it's certainly 'better' for us in the sense that it gives us a…

US Deep State planted the Uyghurs story to get Volkswagen exited from Western China province. Deep State is everywhere.

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

#482

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

vachina wrote: post #265
poszlem wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Help me understand why US should be world police.

Not that I necessarily agree with it, but hegemonic stability theory is the argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory

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

#483

Post by psunavy03 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #480
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations There's an impeachment process. Creating a separate, faster one for constitutional violations is just inviting trouble.

If I recall correctly, I thought there was some legal provision in the US for the military to disobey unconstitutional orders. If it doesn't exist de jure , I suppose it always exists de facto , both in the US and elsewhere. I think it is always interesting when the curtain gets pulled back to reveal how all of our political systems and norms simply overlay the fact that power is the ultimate law of the land.

As a retired military officer, disobeying illegal orders is expected. An order to commit a war crime is itself a crime, not a lawful order.

The sticky part comes in when the venue for determining the legality of the order often then becomes one's own court-martial and resulting appeals. I'm not sure how much case law there is on the subject.

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

#484

Post by Isamu »

Isamu wrote: post #87
dsego wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I don't remember learning or hearing about this one. > While the South Korean government claimed 165 people were killed in the massacre, scholarship on the massacre today estimates 600 to 2,300 victims. Just for the sake of it, compared it to the widely known chinese tiananmen square massacre, albeit this one has widely varying figures on wikipedia: > The Chinese Red Cross had given a figure of 2,600 dea…

Here’s a more recent movie related to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taxi_Driver It’s pretty good, you should be able to find it on streaming services.

I also recommend this book https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Acts although it is pretty heavy reading, about ordinary people caught up in horrific events.

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

#485

Post by JumpCrisscross »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #480
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations There's an impeachment process. Creating a separate, faster one for constitutional violations is just inviting trouble.

If I recall correctly, I thought there was some legal provision in the US for the military to disobey unconstitutional orders. If it doesn't exist de jure , I suppose it always exists de facto , both in the US and elsewhere. I think it is always interesting when the curtain gets pulled back to reveal how all of our political systems and norms simply overlay the fact that power is the ultimate law of the land.

> I thought there was some legal provision in the US for the military to disobey unconstitutional orders

It's less a legal provision than a consequence of humans being the interface of the law. So while there is, in theory, a duty to disobey, there is also a presumption of lawfulness of orders [1][2].

[1] https://ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-offenses/the-lawf...

[2] https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when-can-a-soldier-disobey...

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

#486

Post by jajko »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #458
mananaysiempre wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard constitutional remedy is to have martial law automatically expire after a few days (without being able to be imposed afterwards for a while, etc.) unless the parliament votes to confirm it. But apparently South Korea doesn’t have anything like that.

> standard constitutional remedy is to have martial law automatically expire after a few days (without being able to be imposed afterwards for a while, etc.) unless the parliament votes to confirm it This is in practice useless. The time for action is while the usurper is conslidating power. After a few days, they've either won or lost.

Yeah, as russia has shown any treaties all the way up to constitutions are only worth something if all power parties agree to respect them. Otherwise just a wishful thinking or food for academic discussions.

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

#487

Post by all2 »

cogman10 wrote: post #446
soraminazuki wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that even legal? Because if it is, that means the president can prevent martial law from ever being lifted. The whole constitution would be pointless.

What does legal matter if the guys holding the guns don't care about the law?

Suddenly the rationale of the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution becomes clear.

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

#490

Post by wyre »

atomicnumber3 wrote: post #169
Workaccount2 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No, like five people in the west were convinced of that and they spent all their free time screeching about it on Twitter. Everyone else knew the difference between masks and literal martial law.

I don't know what type of narrative you're trying to spread, but considering FactCheck.org [1] had to dubunk martial law claims in 2020 considerably more than 5 people thought martial law was coming.

[1] https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/martial-law-isnt-imminent/

Post reply on HN