To people who don't even know what martial law is

To people who don't even know what martial law is

These are the reasons for those who sympathize with Yoon Suk Yeol's attempted civil war without knowing anything about it. It goes like, "Didn't the president try to use such a hard card to escape from the state of paralysis since the opposition party tried to use the majority of seats to monopolize legislation?" This is nonsense. Those who say this do not even know exactly what martial law is.

When a person goes to the hospital sick, the prescription varies depending on the symptoms. If you have a cold, you end up giving medicine, and if you have body aches, you often get injections. However, if it becomes cancer or something, the story changes. Eventually, you have to put a knife on your body. When you go to the hospital because you have a cold, everyone will be shocked and embarrassed to have your limbs cut off, and you will doubt the doctor's qualifications.

Emergency martial law is not just about scolding the opposition party that does not listen. (I don't know if it's normal for the opposition party to think it's okay to scold them for not listening to them), but in a country with emergency martial law, the martial law command can restrict the basic rights of the people. The media is also controlled. There are traces of attempts by the command to set up a press office to control the situation.

The opposition party had a lot of seats, so they cut the budget here and there, impeached the prosecutors in charge for not doing the first lady investigation properly, and it seems that there are too many impeachment proposals, so they did martial law.

But is it enough to limit the basic rights of the people and put the media under the military to control them? This is difficult to exist in normal times other than war. However, with the usual political strife, the president tried to limit the basic rights of the whole nation, detain lawmakers, and get the media under his thumb, saying that things do not work out at will.

I ask you again. Was this the right thing to do?

He does not know how the legal definition of a situation in which some people with no sense are actually required to invoke emergency martial law, but he says that the president can beat him with the military because the opposition party unfairly cut the budget. Considering that the opposition party unfairly cut the budget, the first thing a president should do is not mobilize the military but negotiate. That is a democracy.

But where did he negotiate? If you hate the 22nd impeachment of a bureaucrat or prosecutor, do you think he has endured 25 vetoes because he looks so good?

Aren't those who say that to themselves, for example, when the opposition party takes power, they will complain about why they don't cooperate and do what they want?

Martial law is almost inevitably followed by restrictions on the basic rights of the majority of the people, since the gravity of the situation on which it is based should be able to really collapse the system itself. Some people think martial law ends with some kind of Lee Jae-myung in it, but Lee Jae-myung is on trial. One even came out guilty. That's a pretty strong sentence. Martial law doesn't need anything as a means of giving up a hundred times and getting politicians in that I hate very much. It's also possible with laws that work in peacetime.

Budgetary cut? No martial law. This can be solved if the president negotiates with the National Assembly. Lee Jae-myung is the problem? No martial law is necessary. It is up to the justice department to decide. Prosecutor impeachment? It is up to the Constitutional Court to decide. In fact, the impeachment of Minister of Public Administration and Security Lee Sang-min was unanimously rejected by the Constitutional Court, and he is still serving as the minister. Impeachments of prosecutors Ahn Dong-wan and Lee Jung-seop were also rejected by the Constitutional Court.

Are there any grounds for those who spew out that martial law was worth it, that required martial law, or that would limit the basic rights of the people and control the media altogether?

Or else do you believe that such a country is appropriate that the president can limit the basic rights of the people at any time if he wants to?

Even the presidents of those days, when social conflicts were much more intense than now, tear gas was flying every day in university districts, and Yonsei University's general building was burned, did not invoke martial law carelessly. But now, they have used measures to restrict basic rights of the people, which they did not use even then, just because they didn't like the opposition party, and they are saying, "It's a warning" as if it were some kind of joke.

I'm really angry. None of the advocates for the insurrection have deviated from personal idolatry or extreme camp logic for the current president. You may know that rational judgment is not possible and that private opinions play a big role, but you'd better act discerningly. There are many more people who don't write openly who are even more angry about it.