South Korea declares Martial Law then doesn't

[Touring Mars]

Developing story:

• South Korea's President Yoon Suk Yeol has declared emergency martial law
• President Yoon says the measure is necessary to protect the country from North Korea's communist forces and to eliminate anti-state elements
  Martial law means rule by military authorities in a time of emergency, and can mean the suspension of normal civil rights
• A statement by South Korea's martial law commander says political activities are now "strictly prohibited" - but members of the national assembly are gathering inside parliament for a late-night meeting

South Korea's President Yoon Suk Yeol declares emergency martial law - live updates

In a surprise late night address, Yoon Suk Yeol, who has been struggling to pass a budget bill, says the move is to protect the country from "North Korean forces".

www.bbc.co.uk

-

It's not clear what the perceived threat from North Korea is exactly, but this could be a very volatile situation.

 

[Fezzik]

It's not clear what the perceived threat from North Korea is exactly

There isn't one. Everything suggest it's a powergrab by the President, even his own party leader has disowned the move. Wannabe dictator trying to evade corruption investigations.

From Sky News:

The leader of the ruling People Power Party has defied the president by saying the decision to impose martial law is "wrong".
Han Dong-hoon vowed to "stop it with the people" and said the step was unconstitutional.

A South Korean political commentator has said President Yoon Suk Yeol's move to declare martial law is due to a "purely domestic political issue".

The South Korean president has previously dismissed calls for independent investigations into scandals involving his wife and top officials.

 

[Liquid]

To the surprise of most, South Korea was itself a dictatorship until the late 1960s. History appears to be repeating itself.

 

[Fezzik]

South Korea's parliament has voted to block the president's move to declare martial law, according to the Yonhap and Reuters news agencies.

 

[Nebuc72]

To the surprise of most, South Korea was itself a dictatorship until the late 1960s. History appears to be repeating itself.

Dictatorship until '88, really. The 60's-80's were still under military dictatorship. Gwangju Massacre was only 1980. It's a really new political system for them.

 

[Liquid]

Dictatorship until '88, really. The 60's-80's were still under military dictatorship. Gwangju Massacre was only 1980. It's a really new political system for them.

Thanks. I knew there was a revolution in the 60s, didn't really know it was from one to another.

 

[TexRex]

Wow...swift, decisive action.

I'm not at all envious. Nope!

 

[Keef]

Wow...swift, decisive action.

I'm not at all envious. Nope!

That's a pretty dramatic note to mention.



The basic facts minus surely a lot of detail. President declared marshall law, the military responded as expected and did what they were supposed to do, the national assembly voted unanimously to overturn it, the military again did what they were supposed to do.

My take: This was a "false flag". Nothing was accomplished here...except the fact that everything that was supposed to happen did happen, and that everybody did their jobs as expected. SK just proved that their president does have the power to take drastic action, the military will follow this instruction without question, the national assembly does have the power to invalidate the president if necessary, and once again the military will follow that instruction without question.

Everything worked. Nothing to see here.

 

[Biggles]

Everything worked. Nothing to see here.

There is something to see. I'll bet who's looking is Donald J. Trump. He would love to be able to declare martial law and round up the "enemies within" ... you know, people like Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, the editors of the NYT & Washington Post, Steven Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel etc. How likely would it be that ALL (or even a majority) of Republican members of the House & Senate would vote against Trump in such an event?

 

[Fezzik]

How likely would it be that ALL (or even a majority) of Republican members of the House & Senate would vote against Trump in such an event?

Even here only 10 members of the President's party voted to preserve democracy, the rest decided to stay in bed. You think they could get even 10 Republicans to block Trump?