477

submitted 3 weeks ago by flamingos@feddit.uk to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 13 points 3 weeks ago

There was a moment last night where the military could have stepped in and enforced the president’s will, but chose not to

Umm, why are we whitewashing the military's role in this? Let's not forget that the military tried to stop the vote of the National Assembly to end martial law. They had to defend the Assembly using fire extinguishers and couch barricades to stop the military breaking in. And that the military continued enforcing the martial law provisions everywhere other than the Assembly even after the National Assembly had voted unanimously to end it, not standing down until 3 hours later when President Yoon declared it over.

Constitutionally I have no idea what's up. Whether the initial declaration was lawful, whether the Assembly's motion to end it had legal effect, whether the President's word was needed to end it. But at the very least from an outsider perspective, it certainly looks like the military was attempting to enforce the President's will and was taking advantage of the opportunity to be as authoritarian as it could.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 10 points 3 weeks ago

Umm, why are we whitewashing the military's role in this?

Not really trying to "whitewash" the military. I was just pointing out the difference between the average cop in America and the average service member in Korea.

The military is definitely part of the police state and will obviously do their jobs, especially the command structure. However, there is a big difference between the socially acceptable use of state violence between the two countries.

President's word was needed to end it. But at the very least from an outsider perspective, it certainly looks like the military was attempting to enforce the President's will and

Much like America the president is the commander and chief of the military, and thus the military must follow lawful orders.

was taking advantage of the opportunity to be as authoritarian as it could.

I think that's a bit of an over exaggeration considering there wasn't a mass casualty event or even real violence. Which is definitely an improvement considering South Korea was a highly violent military dictatorship within my own lifetime.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Okay but you also need to acknowledge they rolled out with all of their gear. If they truly supported this then some staffer with a fire extinguisher would not have stopped them. This has all the energy of malicious compliance.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 0 points 3 weeks ago

This has all the energy of malicious compliance.

Strongly disagree. I see no evidence to believe that's what it is.

Just because the military was engaged, doesn't mean that they were told it's no holds barred. Even riot police suppressing violent protests don't typically just turn a machine gun on the protestors. They would have had rules of engagement that prevented them from escalating too far. And possibly, yes, a personal reticence on the part of the soldiers directly involved in it and their immediate superiors to escalate in a way that would cause irreparable harm, but even that is categorically different from "malicious compliance" where the goal is to only do the bare minimum that would not get them in trouble for disobeying orders. Instead it's more like do the most they think they can without causing a huge scandal about their own actions.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

You have a contradiction. You admit they may have had an extremely restrictive ROE, but ignore what that means about military buy in for their orders. That's something the officers would impose to maliciously comply with the president's orders. "The President has ordered you to occupy Parliament and secure the building from ministers and staff. Your commander requires that you do this without hurting anyone, the most you may do is to give verbal commands."

No matter which way you cut it, if they had believed in it those staffers would be dead or in detainment and the legislators wouldn't have made it within a mile of the place.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago

That's something the officers would impose to maliciously comply with the president's orders

Not necessarily. I think it's quite unreasonable to interpret it any other way than that the President presumably wouldn't want Koreans mass shooting Koreans, especially elected politicians. The level of force they used is pretty much what I would expect of normal compliance with the orders and their presumed spirit, given what seems to be a lack of detail.