Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is he going to ban voting next?
I think the next step is just to jail anybody who might vote against him.
South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
491–500 of 739 posts
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#492Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is looking stupider by the minute. You can't half ass a coup d'etat.
The failed coup in Turkey comes to mind. It was a really strange one.
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#493A few months ago, the US deputy secretary of state said Yoon deserved the Nobel Peace prize. I wonder if this is still the US state department's position. https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Japan-South-Korea-ties/U.S....
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#494Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And a similar rule that at least one person will defend Russia, regardless of how truthful the accusations are. And in this particular case, NK troops fighting in a land war in Europe at Russia's side is a major geopolitical shift, whether you agree or not.
Still zero serious evidence of this.
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#496Freedom seems to be on the decline everywhere.
[flagged]
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#497Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is, to put it mildly, highly debatable (and highly debated) that COVID measures were really an abuse of freedom at all.
Agreed. Laws that protect people from harm by others, intentionally or recklessly, protect the freedom of innocent people.
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#498Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yoon or the army would still have to recognize it.
> Yoon or the army would still have to recognize it If the army recognises it and Yoon does not, that's still a coup d'etat. It's just that the military is siding with the National Assembly. The only way for this to consittutionally resolve is Yoon recognises it as well as the army.
If the president says "martial law", and the military says "no", that's not martial law. That's the president saying some words.
It may still be a coup d'etat attempt by the president, but it's not martial law.
So if the military recognizes the end of martial law, the martial law is over.
If Yoon recognizes it, and the military doesn't, that's a whole nother can of worms. Then it's really a coup.
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#499Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-…
> It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.
So for those non-military reading, while it's almost always a bad idea to try to sea-lawyer your way out (though some court challenges have worked), you also are expected to use "ordinary sense and understanding" to reject orders like "go massacre those clearly unarmed noncombatants." But if it's not as cartoonishly obvious as that, there's a good chance you will have to defend your actions at a court-martial, and the legality of the order will be down to the interpretation of the presiding military judge and appellate courts.
Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it
#500Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the context of western politics, "woke vs not woke" is just today's name for progressive (or even status quo) vs reactionary politics. What's being referred to in SK is somewhat more specific to incels and the 4B movement (which is more radical than how westerners have been using it).
I've read in multiple places that 4B is just an online thing, maybe a couple of thousand women, that has blown up in western news media and not a real life thing in Korea.