South Korea president declares martial law to overcome opposition party; his own party and the opposition vow to block declaration

[ThatRobGuy]

What examples do you have in mind?

Some of the stuff that happened in 2020 were a bit heavy-handed.

Rolling lockdowns in many countries in the name of covid mitigation.

In Minnesota, they had Swat Teams rolling through neighborhoods shooting people with riot-control paintball guns for standing on their own porch after 8pm curfew

‘Light ‘Em Up’: Paint Rounds Shot At Minneapolis Residents

The incident was captured on video as authorities worked to enforce the 8 p.m. curfew in Minneapolis Saturday night.

patch.com

(and they weren't the only the only city with draconian curfew measures in response to the 2020 protests)

Canada had several pastors getting arrested for refusing to cancel church services.

In the US, you had police barging in and arresting restaurant owners for letting people eat inside, instead of outside in an enclosed tent in the parking lot. (never understood how that one made sense?)

People getting arrested for surfing, by themselves, at a beach.

Apart from the covid and Floyd protest related stuff in 2020...

Things like "stop and frisk" laws have not only been tolerated, by embraced by some in certain jurisdictions.

There have been proposals aimed and criminally punishing a person for trying to travel across state lines to partake of something that's legal in that other state.

About 40% of our young people think that people should be punished for speech they find offensive.

DUI checkpoints are still embraced by half the population.

Things like the Patriot Act and Warrantless Wiretapping...

I think each of these things demonstrates a certain level of tolerance to some of the aspects of Marial Law (though I understand that true Martial Law doesn't occur until the typical civilian legal process is suspended in favor of some form of Military Rule)

So while some of these didn't involve a militarized force completely supplanting the normal civilian law, they did show that a lot of people are way too comfortable with tossing some portion the civil law rulebook out the window in the name of expediency for certain things.

Full blown martial law isn't as big of a leap for governments to make if a percentage of citizens have already shown they're somewhat okay with the second part... that just tells the people in power what they need to claim it's "in the name of" to make people more tolerant of it.

 

[durangodawood]

Some of the stuff that happened in 2020 were a bit heavy-handed.

Rolling lockdowns in many countries in the name of covid mitigation.

In Minnesota, they had Swat Teams rolling through neighborhoods shooting people with riot-control paintball guns for standing on their own porch after 8pm curfew

‘Light ‘Em Up’: Paint Rounds Shot At Minneapolis Residents

The incident was captured on video as authorities worked to enforce the 8 p.m. curfew in Minneapolis Saturday night.

patch.com

(and they weren't the only the only city with draconian curfew measures in response to the 2020 protests)

Canada had several pastors getting arrested for refusing to cancel church services.

In the US, you had police barging in and arresting restaurant owners for letting people eat inside, instead of outside in an enclosed tent in the parking lot. (never understood how that one made sense?)

People getting arrested for surfing, by themselves, at a beach.

Apart from the covid and Floyd protest related stuff in 2020...

Things like "stop and frisk" laws have not only been tolerated, by embraced by some in certain jurisdictions.

There have been proposals aimed and criminally punishing a person for trying to travel across state lines to partake of something that's legal in that other state.

About 40% of our young people think that people should be punished for speech they find offensive.

DUI checkpoints are still embraced by half the population.

Things like the Patriot Act and Warrantless Wiretapping...

I think each of these things demonstrates a certain level of tolerance to some of the aspects of Marial Law (though I understand that true Martial Law doesn't occur until the typical civilian legal process is suspended in favor of some form of Military Rule)

So while some of these didn't involve a militarized force completely supplanting the normal civilian law, they did show that a lot of people are way too comfortable with tossing some portion the civil law rulebook out the window in the name of expediency for certain things.

Full blown martial law isn't as big of a leap for governments to make if a percentage of citizens have already shown they're somewhat okay with the second part... that just tells the people in power what they need to claim it's "in the name of" to make people more tolerant of it.

These little bits and pieces have always come and gone over US history during war, natural disaster, health emergency, riots, etc - or even just a routine law enforcement latitude. There's nothing to indicate a casual acceptance of full on martial law.

Should people accept martial law in any realistically conceivable circumstance? Provisions for it are sitting there in every state constitution, apparently, and I dont hear much fuss from any "side" about striking them out.

 

[rambot]

I was there a few weeks ago. Young women there have this disconcerting propensity for dressing like schoolgirls.

Kids right up to high school are uniformed in south korea. So you may have just seen high schoolers actually dressed in their outfits.

I lived there (a long time ago.....like 2007 I left) and Korean young women were SUPER excited to get out of their schoolgirl uniforms.

Were these young women who were DEFINITELY out of high school?

 

[Arcangl86]

I suspect the military kept their hands at their sides and their eyes on the national assembly.

And really, as scary as it is, it is often the military that is the guardian of the constitutional order because you can't go tyrant without them. One interesting I learned in my MIddle East history class was that there were multiple coups by the military in Turkye to ensure that the constitution instituted by Kamal was followed.

 

[RDKirk]

And really, as scary as it is, it is often the military that is the guardian of the constitutional order because you can't go tyrant without them. One interesting I learned in my MIddle East history class was that there were multiple coups by the military in Turkye to ensure that the constitution instituted by Kamal was followed.

Even as the old USSR was collapsing, the Red Army was ordered to fire on citizens in Red Square...and refused.

I was in the Philippines when the People's Rebellion was ousting strongman Ferdinand Marcos. It had actually been the Philippine Air Force that kicked off the rebellion, with a bit of unanticipated and unknowing encouragement from President Reagan.

After the assassination of Marcos-opponent Benigno Aquino, pretty obviously ordered by Marcos, Marcos ordered a "snap election" to bolster proof that he was the legal president. The vote tally went for him, but there was an incredible level of fraud, which the American government observers reported. At the very end of a presidential press conference on another subject, just as President Reagan was preparing to leave the stage, a reporter asked a question of his opinion of the Philippine election. Reagan tossed back over his shoulder, "Well, it looks fraudulent to me."

I don't think Reagan gave it much thought at the moment, but in the Philippines his response hit like an atomic bomb. Marcos had always used his American government support as his hold card, the ace up his sleeve. As the news that even President Reagan considered Marcos' presidency to be fraudulent, the boil began.

Marcos ordered the Air Force to suppress a riot in Manila. The fighter aircraft circled the crowd...and then flew away as the Philippine Air Force Command-in-Chief announced the opposition of the Air Force to Marcos. Although the Philippine Marines remained loyal to Marcos, they were at the naval bases and largely outside the action.

We were riveted to the local television and news stations checking off the Philippine Army units clicking one by one against Marcos...like listening to election results. The soldiers drove their tanks into Manila...and got out of them to join the protestors.

An interesting in-story: After the action had been resolved (the US Air Force whisked Marcos out of the country to Hawaii to cut his resistance short...and I was part of that action), we did an after-action intelligence report. It turned out that nearly all of us who had a Philippine Air Force contact, from the 13th Air Force commanding general...all the way down to me...had been asked by our contact the same question: If there were to be a popular rebellion against Ferdinand Marcos, what would be the American reaction? Our answer had been: As long as US forces are not threatened...we'd have no reaction.

 

[Bradskii]

Kids right up to high school are uniformed in south korea. So you may have just seen high schoolers actually dressed in their outfits.

I lived there (a long time ago.....like 2007 I left) and Korean young women were SUPER excited to get out of their schoolgirl uniforms.

Were these young women who were DEFINITELY out of high school?

I've re written my reply 3 times. And they each sound like I've been wandering around Seoul oggling young girls. I think might drop this topic...

 

[rambot]

I've re written my reply 3 times. And they each sound like I've been wandering around Seoul oggling young girls. I think might drop this topic...

haha! I just noticed that. What was weird though was during exam times, kids would stay at school til 10 or 11 at night sometimes...so seeing high schoolers in their uniforms did seem....offputting at 1130 at night. Especially since it (was) incredibly difficult to pinpoint the age of Korean women.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared “emergency martial law” on Tuesday evening, accusing the opposition of “antistate” activities for paralyzing the government with impeachment motions. [He also accused them of being North Korean sympathizers.]

Yoon has been struggling with low approval ratings since taking office in 2022. He has also been facing mounting political backlash involving his wife and top officials from his ruling People Power Party.

--
Reuters
Yonhap news agency cited the military as saying activities by parliament and political parties would be banned, and that media and publishers would be under the control of the martial law command.

The surprise move sent shockwaves through the country, which had a series of authoritarian leaders early in its history but has been considered democratic since the 1980s.

Yoon cited a motion by the country's opposition Democratic Party, which has a majority in parliament, this week to impeach some of the country's top prosecutors and its rejection of a government budget proposal.

Yonhap reported that the entrance to the parliament building was blocked.
--

Beeb

Ruling party and opposition both vow to block declaration​

The Yonhap news agency is reporting that the leader of South Korean opposition Democratic Party, Lee Jae-myung, has said the declaration of martial law is unconstitutional.

Yonhap is also reporting that Han Dong-hoon, the head of the ruling People Power Party - of which President Yoon Suk Yeol is a member - has also vowed to block the declaration, describing it as "wrong".

-

While martial law usually involves restrictions on what the public can do, [Oxbridge prof in Seoul] says he sees no signs of the military on the streets of Seoul, and has chatted to a policeman, who he says is “as mystified as I am”.

“The streets look normal, people here are certainly bewildered,” he says. “It looked like this was simply politics of a normal sort.”

South Korea was supposed to be the democratic one too.

 

[RDKirk]

South Korea was supposed to be the democratic one too.

They are. The parliament said, "No dice" and the military stood aside. Being democratic doesn't mean the democracy won't be tested...it means it will withstand the tests.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

This has to be the most embarassing coup of the century.

Oh, I can think of another one…

 

[Helmut-WK]

I'm still curious as to how these two separate provisions were compatible...

They are not compatible. And this means, that the martial law decree is illegal.

This happens sometimes.

In Germany, the Ermächtigungsgesetz (enabling law) which gave Hitler full dictatorship power was passed by the two houses, Reichtag and Reichsrat. The latter was possible, because the biggest German State, Prussia, had his government removed by a former Berlin government, so the Nazis used the Prussian votes to get the required 2/3-majority.

According to law (There had been a verdict from the supreme court Reichgericht), the former social-democrat government should have the Prussian votes in the Reichsrat, and since the SPD party opposed this law, it was never legally passed. But who cared?

Given the amount of immunity Tramp has been granted by the supreme court, I wonder how such a move like in Korea would end up in the USA?

 

[wing2000]

And really, as scary as it is, it is often the military that is the guardian of the constitutional order because you can't go tyrant without them. One interesting I learned in my MIddle East history class was that there were multiple coups by the military in Turkye to ensure that the constitution instituted by Kamal was followed.

In this case, it appears the national legislature successfully pulled off a vote - despite the best efforts of the S. Korean military, which included special forces. Check out this:

South Korea’s short-lived martial law: How it unfolded and what’s next

It was a chaotic six hours that saw lawmakers climbing walls in a bid to stop President Yoon’s martial law from taking effect, with police and military troops blocking their way. Here’s how it happened and what the path to impeachment might look like.

www.reuters.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Given the amount of immunity Tramp has been granted by the supreme court, I wonder how such a move like in Korea would end up in the USA?

I'm guessing the odds would be slim...

We have too many gun owners for it to be practically enforceable on any large scale (there are ways that's a curse and a blessing obviously)

The gun owning civilian population outnumbers active military personnel by nearly 50:1.

Obviously, that's created problems for us in many other aspects of life and society, but it would come in handy in one of these types of situations.

That's not to say that if the US military wanted to go "scorched earth" on the civilian population they wouldn't be able to win, they've got missiles and helicopters and tanks. But it would involve having to make some much tougher decisions on their part than what a soldier in a largely disarmed country would have to make.

Martial Law against enforcement against a largely disarmed population mostly consists of looking scary with a gun, shoving some people around and dodging a few occasional rocks getting thrown. A little different when 2/3 of the adult population owns firearms (30% of which, are ones that are classified as "assault weapons")... I don't think the "physical intimidation"/"presence-only" approach to enforcement would be as effective here as it is in some other places. But that's just speculation obviously.

 

[Arcangl86]

In this case, it appears the national legislature successfully pulled off a vote - despite the best efforts of the S. Korean military, which included special forces. Check out this:

South Korea’s short-lived martial law: How it unfolded and what’s next

It was a chaotic six hours that saw lawmakers climbing walls in a bid to stop President Yoon’s martial law from taking effect, with police and military troops blocking their way. Here’s how it happened and what the path to impeachment might look like.

www.reuters.com

The restriction on the Assembly meeting was probably illegal and they shouldn't have followed it, but it was a fuzzy situation since martial law had been declared. Once the Assembly declared it was over they disbursed instead of just ignoring it.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm guessing the odds would be slim...

We have too many gun owners for it to be practically enforceable on any large scale (there are ways that's a curse and a blessing obviously)

The gun owning civilian population outnumbers active military personnel by nearly 50:1.

Obviously, that's created problems for us in many other aspects of life and society, but it would come in handy in one of these types of situations.

You are presuming the gun-owning population disagrees with the president's action. I don't think that can be presumed over the next four years.

That's not to say that if the US military wanted to go "scorched earth" on the civilian population they wouldn't be able to win, they've got missiles and helicopters and tanks. But it would involve having to make some much tougher decisions on their part than what a soldier in a largely disarmed country would have to make.

Martial Law against enforcement against a largely disarmed population mostly consists of looking scary with a gun, shoving some people around and dodging a few occasional rocks getting thrown. A little different when 2/3 of the adult population owns firearms (30% of which, are ones that are classified as "assault weapons")... I don't think the "physical intimidation"/"presence-only" approach to enforcement would be as effective here as it is in some other places. But that's just speculation obviously.

One difference between the US (and most Western countries) and a number of other countries is that the military does not form a separate social class. Every US soldier expects to finish their tour (even if it's an entire career) and go home to do other things. Even generals expect to become civilians again. When my daughter was in high school, she attended an international program in South Korea that set a girl from China as her room mate. Over the course of getting to know each other, my daughter mentioned that her father was retired military. She said the girl's eyes widened and she gasped. In China, being retired military means being an established Party member, and that's no small deal.

But it's not that way in the US. If a circumstance occurred that put Marine Private Gomer Pyle in opposition to Sheriff Andy, Deputy Fife, Aunt Bee, Gomer's cousin Goober, and Floyd the barber...I believe Gomer will blink. Even the Soviet Red Army blinked when put into that position as the USSR crumbled.

That doesn't mean I don't harbor a significant amount of trepidation. Generally the Congress and the Supreme Court have the will to check the President, and the military does glance over at them when the president gives an iffy order. I'm not at all sure the Congress and the Supreme Court have that will right now.

 

[wing2000]

Given the amount of immunity Tramp has been granted by the supreme court, I wonder how such a move like in Korea would end up in the USA?

David French in a NYT Editorial: Could Martial Law happen here?

"The short answer is no. The longer answer is yes — if a president (or a governor) exploits ambiguities in American law."

There are concerns that Trump could exploit the poor written Insurrection Act.
And as French notes:

"...Trump almost invoked the Insurrection Act during his first term. In the summer of 2020, he considered ordering federal troops to suppress the urban unrest that exploded after the murder of George Floyd, but he ultimately backed down after his secretary of defense, Mark Esper, publicly stated his opposition to Trump’s plan."

....and if the DoD, White Counsel, DOJ, etc are all loyal to Trump, what is to stop him? A lot of damage could be done before lawsuits end up at the USSC.

Opinion | Can Martial Law Happen in America?

Events in South Korea have people thinking.

www.nytimes.com

 

[wing2000]

We have too many gun owners for it to be practically enforceable on any large scale (there are ways that's a curse and a blessing obviously)

The gun owning civilian population outnumbers active military personnel by nearly 50:1.

What makes you think the armed citizens would come to the defense of the Congress? (...in a scenario similar to S. Korea).

 

[RDKirk]

What makes you think the armed citizens would come to the defense of the Congress? (...in a scenario similar to S. Korea).

They probably wouldn't have to come to the defense of this Congress.

 

[Belk]

You are presuming the gun-owning population disagrees with the president's action. I don't think that can be presumed over the next four years.

Just to point out that there are no small number of left leaning people who own firearms. True they are less likely then conservatives, but we do exist.

One difference between the US (and most Western countries) and a number of other countries is that the military does not form a separate social class. Every US soldier expects to finish their tour (even if it's an entire career) and go home to do other things. Even generals expect to become civilians again. When my daughter was in high school, she attended an international program in South Korea that set a girl from China as her room mate. Over the course of getting to know each other, my daughter mentioned that her father was retired military. She said the girl's eyes widened and she gasped. In China, being retired military means being an established Party member, and that's no small deal.

But it's not that way in the US. If a circumstance occurred that put Marine Private Gomer Pyle in opposition to Sheriff Andy, Deputy Fife, Aunt Bee, Gomer's cousin Goober, and Floyd the barber...I believe Gomer will blink. Even the Soviet Red Army blinked when put into that position as the USSR crumbled.

That doesn't mean I don't harbor a significant amount of trepidation. Generally the Congress and the Supreme Court have the will to check the President, and the military does glance over at them when the president gives an iffy order. I'm not at all sure the Congress and the Supreme Court have that will right now.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You are presuming the gun-owning population disagrees with the president's action. I don't think that can be presumed over the next four years.

Also, there doesn't appear to be much impetus or much of a reason to need to do it (even if someone would be inclined to do it).

Trump, in essence, has all 3 branches for at least the first part of his term. (he'll likely have at least 2.5 out of the 3 for the second half of it)

Not really much of a need to usurp the civilian government if the civilian government is comprised of a 6/3 judicial majority, and both houses of the legislature in one's own favor.