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

561–570 of 739 posts

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

#561

Post by the_af »

majesticglue wrote: post #472
onemoresoop wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Putin meddling in North Korea should be alarming to South Korea.

No. South Korea should be more alarmed about how US is treating their allies. Henry Kissinger quote: “It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.”

I strongly dislike Kissinger and his legacy, but apparently the full quote [1] doesn't imply being America's friend is fatal:

"Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the same fate as Diem, the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."

Here Kissinger is advising Nixon not to let South Vietnam's dictator Thieu suffer the same fate as Diem (who was deposed and killed with the US support, or at least, the US turning a blind eye).

[1] https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/56471/30861

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

#562

Post by t-3 »

tokinonagare wrote: post #22
cuuupid wrote: post #4

Can someone ELI5 if this is a huge deal (like declaring martial law would be in the west), or if this is the equivalent of a "government shutdown" when similar budget impasses occur in the US?

> President Yoon Suk Yeol declared an “emergency martial law,” Tuesday accusing the country’s opposition of controlling the parliament [...] Yoon — whose approval rating has dipped in recent months — Seems like a coup. > Yoon’s conservative People Power Party had been locked in an impasse with the liberal opposition Democratic Party over next year’s budget bill. Yeah, just like in France where the government is expec…

Wasn't a new government elected but never allowed to take power due to Macron refusing to confirm them just a few months ago? Will that change now?

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

#563

Post by n4r9 »

no_exit wrote: post #494
qqqwerty wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> NK troops fighting Still zero serious evidence of this.

At this point it seems pretty likely tbh. Putin signed a new mutual pact with Kim earlier this year. There are videos of North Korean men receiving Russian military uniforms and signing forms in Sergeyevka. The US, Ukraine, NATO, and South Korea are all reporting incidences of North Koreans fighting and dying in the Kursk region. Putin has given wishy washy statements like "how we utilise the mutual pact is our business".

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

#564

Post by [deleted] »

sneak wrote: post #168
aurareturn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orwell being so right about governments using the constant threat of a virtual enemy has got to be one of the all time top on the money predictions ever. Who is that virtual enemy for the US?

The rest of the replies here seem to be personal attitudes and opinions. Objectively, the state-promoted bogeymen in the USA are consistently Iran, China, DPRK, and increasingly Russia. I just spent a month in China and the disparity between what we are told in western media and what is actually going on is substantial, but not in the ways I expected.

[deleted]

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

#565

Post by card_zero »

pc86 wrote: post #559
cyberlimerence wrote: post #386

Yonhap (Korea state news) : The National Assembly voted Wednesday to demand President Yoon Suk Yeol lift emergency martial law. Under the Constitution, martial law must be lifted when a parliamentary majority demands it. Of the 300 members of parliament, 190 were present and all 190 voted in favor of a motion demanding the lifting of martial law. With the motion's passage, the martial law declaration is void, accordi…

The President has said he will stand down martial law through the cabinet meeting. My understanding is that the parliamentary vote itself is not binding, but requires essentially a rubber stamp by the cabinet. They can decline to do so and the President wouldn't be legally required to stand down. Regardless, 190-0 is an overwhelming statement and if I was represented by one of the 110 absent members I would have a lo…

This is now done, the cabinet met and lifted the martial law (despite the time being about 5 in the morning).

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

#566

Post by yyuugg »

divility wrote: post #450
yyuugg wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Double check my thesis. Hint: It was not a judgement on the problematic nature of these laws. We can discuss that elsewhere if you want, but that's fairly orthogonal to the discussion.

Stronger hint: my thesis was focused on which groups the state legislates against, and how it wasn't "white men".

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

#568

Post by vundercind »

all2 wrote: post #487
cogman10 wrote: post #446

Earlier 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.

I have bad news for you about which side of things a lot of the 2nd amendment fans are gonna be on if this comes to the US.

The history with actual cases of private arms being used to support or to resist government tyranny in the US can be generously described as "mixed".

It's also telling that so many instances like that, in the US and elsewhere, start with "... and then the good guys (or sometimes bad guys) seized a barely-guarded state armory". It's debatable how relevant private arms are to the resistance of tyranny anyway.

Foreign occupations are a whole other matter. When the call's coming from inside the house, plenty of your fellow "freedom-lovers" are helpfully using their liberty to liberate you from your liberty.

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

#569

Post by nickff »

yeonsh wrote: post #425

Democracy in Korea at a Crossroad On December 3, 2024, at 10:27 PM, President Yoon Seokyeol declared martial law. This declaration is illegal and constitutes a criminal act, directly violating the Constitution and other laws. It is essentially a coup d'état. The current political and social situation does not meet the criteria of "a time when it is necessary to respond to military needs or maintain public order in wa…

How is this a coup? It doesn't seem to fall under Wikipedia or any other definition I can find. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#:~:text=A%2....

Do you consider Justin Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act in Canada to have been a coup?

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

#570

Post by vundercind »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #507
cogman10 wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2nd amendment was added because the founding fathers didn't want a federal military. Instead, they wanted every state to have its own militia [1]. The interpretation that it means every private citizen can own a gun is modern not historic. It wasn't until the 2008 DC V Heller case that the right to firearms was actually established. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29

Absolutely incorrect. The state militias consisted of private citizens with their own arms who would organize when needed, not standing state armies with government issued arms. Also, private gun ownership was the norm at the time. Heller draws it's decision from historical reality and originalist philosophy

> Heller draws it's decision from historical reality and originalist philosophy

The "reality" in this sentence here is pretty solidly not accurate. The majority opinion in Heller asserted truths about the past that aren't born out by the historical record. Probably lifted straight from interest-group amicus briefs that agreed with what the majority was inclined to decide to begin with.

[EDIT] Whoops. I mean, that the above is often true in cases that cite history, even legal history, means it might still be true, but I was actually thinking of Bruen, where this happened to a degree that'd be comical if it weren't, you know, the Supreme Court.

Post reply on HN