4 ms·

Despite the National Assembly's resolution to end martial law, the military stated that it would remain in effect until ended by the president >Martial law wil

Despite the National Assembly's resolution to end martial law, the military stated that it would remain in effect until ended by the president >Martial law will remain until the president lifts martial law"...Armored vehicles also seen in the city center https://m.ytn.co.kr/news_view.php?s_mcd=0101&key=202412040135157140&pos= https://m.ytn.co.kr/news_view.php?s_mcd=0101&key=20241204013...

SauciestGNU 2y ago
Seems like everybody's staking out all-in positions here. Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups.
- robotnikman 2y ago
  As the saying goes- If you aim for the king, you better not miss
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups. They're following the law. The Constitution obligates the President to lift martial law after the National Assembly nullifies it.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    The question is then what the Constitution says about a president who fails to execute his constitutional obligations, such as lifting martial law once it is nullified. Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations or a faster solution. I don't even know if there is a faster route than impeachment in the US system.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > 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.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        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.
        psunavy03 2y ago
        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.
        vundercind 2y ago
        This is further complicated by a history (yes, in the US) of not just failing to prosecute obvious war criminals, and of pardoning many who do somehow manage to get convicted, but wide swaths of the population treating them as heroes. There are recent examples, but look at how we treated those with the most direct culpability for the My Lai massacre, and further, how the guy who took direct action to stop it got treated—this stuff goes back quite a bit, we pretty consistently don't just tolerate but coddle war criminals, so... risk disobeying the illegal order and maybe get treated like a villain, or become an actual villain but good odds you get hero treatment? The law is arguably not what's written, but what actually happens, and analyzed that way our laws about war crime are complicated.
    - ibejoeb 2y ago
      >I don't even know if there is a faster route than impeachment in the US system. There's section 4 of the 25th amendment, but it is untested.
    - bonzini 2y ago
      The declaration of martial law was already unconstitutional in the part that forbids something that is explicitly mentioned in the constitution (a meeting of the Parliament to request that the president lift the martial law). Which is probably why the members of the Parliament only has minor obstacles towards having their meeting.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Which means that the president is ignoring the constitution. And so is the military. Very much not good...
- falseprofit 2y ago
  I’m not sure the military is ignoring the constitution. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe they’re supposed to follow the president’s orders.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    I'm not an expert on South Korean constitutional law. But from the parts that others have quoted here, if the legislature declares an end to the martial law, that's the end of the martial law. The military should not then be obeying the president's orders to impose martial law, because the martial law is over. In the US, military officers take their oaths to obey the constitution, not the president. I don't know if that's true in South Korea.
    - hugh-avherald 2y ago
      The Korean Constitution says that once the legislature declares an end to martial law, the President "shall comply". The military has to obey the President's orders until that time though, and 'shall comply' has two flaws: (a) it doesn't contemplate what happens if he doesn't and (b) it contemplates time passing, but doesn't specify the duration. These flaws are moot, because the President has complied.
  - soraminazuki 2y ago
    Militaries in liberal democracies should protect the constitution, even if that means disobeying the president.
    - michaelt 2y ago
      The thing is, if you're planning a coup with military backing, you don't do it when your most rule-abiding, law-respecting general is in town. You send that guy to guard the Alaskan border or whatever, and instead recruit a general who's a maverick rules-breaker and who gets on well with you personally. So the military should respect the constitution, but when it comes to a coup you'll get whichever general respects the constitution the least.
fwip 2y ago
Yoon has now announced the lifting of martial law, and the military has withdrawn, according to BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn38321180et?post=asset%3A8353e91d-f4ce-4e41-98d3-7aa63808b80b#post https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn38321180et?post=asset%3A8353...

SauciestGNU 2y ago

Seems like everybody's staking out all-in positions here. Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups.

robotnikman 2y ago
As the saying goes- If you aim for the king, you better not miss
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups. They're following the law. The Constitution obligates the President to lift martial law after the National Assembly nullifies it.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  The question is then what the Constitution says about a president who fails to execute his constitutional obligations, such as lifting martial law once it is nullified. Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations or a faster solution. I don't even know if there is a faster route than impeachment in the US system.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > 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.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      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.
      - psunavy03 2y ago
        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.
        vundercind 2y ago
        This is further complicated by a history (yes, in the US) of not just failing to prosecute obvious war criminals, and of pardoning many who do somehow manage to get convicted, but wide swaths of the population treating them as heroes. There are recent examples, but look at how we treated those with the most direct culpability for the My Lai massacre, and further, how the guy who took direct action to stop it got treated—this stuff goes back quite a bit, we pretty consistently don't just tolerate but coddle war criminals, so... risk disobeying the illegal order and maybe get treated like a villain, or become an actual villain but good odds you get hero treatment? The law is arguably not what's written, but what actually happens, and analyzed that way our laws about war crime are complicated.
  - ibejoeb 2y ago
    >I don't even know if there is a faster route than impeachment in the US system. There's section 4 of the 25th amendment, but it is untested.
  - bonzini 2y ago
    The declaration of martial law was already unconstitutional in the part that forbids something that is explicitly mentioned in the constitution (a meeting of the Parliament to request that the president lift the martial law). Which is probably why the members of the Parliament only has minor obstacles towards having their meeting.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

Which means that the president is ignoring the constitution. And so is the military. Very much not good...

falseprofit 2y ago
I’m not sure the military is ignoring the constitution. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe they’re supposed to follow the president’s orders.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  I'm not an expert on South Korean constitutional law. But from the parts that others have quoted here, if the legislature declares an end to the martial law, that's the end of the martial law. The military should not then be obeying the president's orders to impose martial law, because the martial law is over. In the US, military officers take their oaths to obey the constitution, not the president. I don't know if that's true in South Korea.
  - hugh-avherald 2y ago
    The Korean Constitution says that once the legislature declares an end to martial law, the President "shall comply". The military has to obey the President's orders until that time though, and 'shall comply' has two flaws: (a) it doesn't contemplate what happens if he doesn't and (b) it contemplates time passing, but doesn't specify the duration. These flaws are moot, because the President has complied.
- soraminazuki 2y ago
  Militaries in liberal democracies should protect the constitution, even if that means disobeying the president.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    The thing is, if you're planning a coup with military backing, you don't do it when your most rule-abiding, law-respecting general is in town. You send that guy to guard the Alaskan border or whatever, and instead recruit a general who's a maverick rules-breaker and who gets on well with you personally. So the military should respect the constitution, but when it comes to a coup you'll get whichever general respects the constitution the least.

fwip 2y ago

Yoon has now announced the lifting of martial law, and the military has withdrawn, according to BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn38321180et?post=asset%3A8353e91d-f4ce-4e41-98d3-7aa63808b80b#post https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn38321180et?post=asset%3A8353...