South Korean ex president Yoon Suk Yeol jailed for life for leading insurrection
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I'm reading the comments here and surprised by the lack of depth of assessing Korea's history of prosecuting its presidents and most of you are just regurgitating what's reported in mainstream news that is echoed by Korean mainstream news which cannot give you a neutral impartial view on the situation.
Two Korean presidents were sentenced to death and were pardoned in the 90s. another two Korean presidents were jailed for decades and were released after a few years. All of this is just a quick pandering to voters for whichever side gets hold and I am willing to wager that the current and last President will also see the insides of a jail cell.
I point that democracies like American politics even when it gets ugly to the point do not engage in such tit for tat against the President to the point of sending them to jail, for obvious reasons.
In my personal opinion that's what the US is heading towards to right now, so might give you a hint on how to prevent it.
The important context is that these two presidents were Chun Doo-hwan and his successor Roh Tae-Woo, who led the military coup of December 12th (1979), seizing power, and then sending paratroopers to murder hundreds of civilians to quash public protest in the uprising of Gwangju (1980).
They weren't your garden variety corrupt politicians. They were mass murderers, and by 1995 when they were arrested, they and their military cabals were still posing a credible threat to Korea's democracy. Their arrest and subsequent death sentences, accompanied with a sweeping purge of their military cabal by president Kim Young-Sam, marked an important inflection point in Korea's decades-long struggle toward democracy: before that the threat of a military coup was a constant factor in politics. After that the threat was gone, and since then, the Korean military never even pretended they had any political ambitions.
So mock their later pardons if you want to, but you can't deny it marked an important and necessary step in Korea's history. It also shows sending your ex-presidents to prison only to pardon them later is still better than not bothering with it at all.
* Also, the "obvious reason" that American politics sent zero ex-presidents to prison is that Biden chickened out. So, there's that.
Don't forget Ford deciding to protect his political allies (by pardoning Nixon). And George HW Bush doing similar (preventing Iran-Contra scandal investigation by pardoning participants who could have fingered Bush or Reagan)
Enough of them did, and that's why Yoon's insurrection failed.
Biden had his sweet four years to ponder on the matter, and the worst that could realistically happen to him was that people would say mean things about him. He has no one else to blame for his failure to send Trump to prison.
This insurgency was literally going to suspend democracy and lead to people getting arrested. It is incredibly disturbing so many want a dictator. It disgusts me.
I think your comment here is very emotionally charged here but to clarify to outsiders reading, those protestors also broke into an military armory, armed themselves to the teeth, and an armed conflict broke out. It's still not clear as to who fired the first shot and by all definitions can be viewed as armed insurrection not a mere "public protest".
Also during this time protests were spreading not just in Gwangju but in other large cities. The Gwangju incident is still a very contested and heavily debated historical event one that has been constantly politically weaponized to silence opposition.
> So mock their later pardons if you want to, but you can't deny it marked an important and necessary step in Korea's history. It also shows sending your ex-presidents to prison only to pardon them later is still better than not bothering with it at all.
I am mocking South Korea's political arena because pardoning Presidents after charging them with treason/corruption/insurrection only reinforces that laws are selectively applied and some are still above its law and constitution. Better would've been to refrain from the tit for tat kangaroo courts altogether to placate whatever direction the country's leaning towards in that election cycle.
> Also, the "obvious reason" that American politics sent zero ex-presidents to prison is that Biden chickened out. So, there's that.
Post-watergate scandal, it was President Ford that stated going after Nixon would bottleneck national interest decision making with partisan legal/political factionalism , something that South Korea has become today and it will not stop.
Oh you are one of those people.
So when you said you were "surprised by the lack of depth of assessing Korea's history of prosecuting its presidents" you were complaining that people didn't follow your far-right revisionist history of Korea?
Talking with the likes of you is waste of my time, but just to clear the matter for others interested:
On May 18th, 1980, paratroopers were beating and arresting residents of Gwangju, not just protestors but random civilians, going into people's homes to beat up everyone and arrest anyone they didn't like. By 20th, multiple people were beaten to death, and as people got angry protests became larger and larger.
On 21st, the street of Geumnam-ro was packed with tens of thousands of protestors. On 1 pm, soldiers opened fire on protestors, with more than 50 dying. That afternoon, people started organizing armed militia.
These are all very well known and publicly available information, a google search away for anyone who can read Korean.
English summary is also available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising
I'm not disagreeing with the timeline here, but the moment of breaking into an armory, handing out thousands of military grade weapons to civilians and engaging in active organized firefights fundamentally transforms a situation from a "protest" into a full-scale armed conflict.
To pretend otherwise ignores the exceptionally detailed historical record regarding the sheer level of armed action that took place. This wasn't just a crowd shouting and throwing molotov cocktails.
The citizen militia systematically raided police stations, military reserve armories in surrounding towns. They commandeered hundreds of armored personel carriers, military trucks, and jeeps to use in combat.
The citizen militia armed themselves with several thousands of M1 Garands, carbines, M16s and light machine guns with thousands of rounds of live ammunition and gernades. They even secured somewhere around like 8 tons of TNT and dynamite from local coal mines, which explosives experts among the citizens used to rig the basement of the provincial capital building which served as the headquarter for the militia.
This resulted in intense, organized urban warfare. The militia was heavily armed enough to engage in massive gun battles and physically drive the martial law troops out of downtown Gwangju for several days. In the ensuing combat, official records show 22 soldiers and 4 police officers were killed, alongside over 250 state forces wounded. Even accounting for the soldiers killed by friendly fire in the chaos, the armed citizens actively engaged, shot, and killed military personnel.
We can acknowledge that the Korean military committed atrocities AND that what followed was a highly organized, massive urban warfare between a heavily armed well organized citizens militia and the army. The two facts need not be mutually exclusive. Pointing out the severe reality of the heavy weapons used, the scale of the combat, and the casualties inflicted on both sides is what makes this complex. I'm shining a light on the complicated historical reality of how massive and violent this conflict was as an outsider looking in. I understand you are Korean and I understand this might invoke an emotionally charged take from your part.
It’s also a heavy burden to let a political figure die in a cell, but given how things are going, I’m fairly sure he’s going to spend a long time there.
Yoon Suk Yeol did the basic math of “if our population isn’t having babies and people are getting older, how much medical capacity will we need?”
The results—due to artificial caps on medical students (like the AMA does in the US)—mathed out to: “oh, shit.”
He decided to raise the caps by a lot. The medical establishment freaked out, since that would lower salaries, and went on strike. Doctors, residents, and medical students didn’t show up for months. He had to call in doctors from the army to fill in.
Was a hostile takeover and subversion the right response to frustration over political obstacles? No. But he ran into some very real and frustrating realities (or collective refusal to admit to them.)
Not sure he needed to table-flip into full autocrat, though.
It will forever grate me that those assholes of Korean Medical Association could say "You see how hard we're working for all of you guys? That's why there should be no more doctors!" with a straight face and will never face any consequences for that.
(Of course, it didn't help Yoon that he attacked this problem with the finesse of a bulldozer, with disastrous consequences. But still.)
In fact, what they warned would happen is that it would just increase the number of new graduates heading towards highly lucrative, unregulated medical fields like dermatology and cosmetic surgery, and would only exacerbate the gaps in essential areas like pediatrics, OB/GYN, and emergency medicine, which face real shortages.
The root of the problem is twofold: First, South Korea's National Health Insurance heavily regulates and caps the prices for essential and lifesaving care, sometimes setting reimbursement rates so low that hospitals lose money on them. Meanwhile, non essential aesthetic procedures have no price caps.
Second, South Korea has an unusually high rate of prosecuting doctors criminally for medical malpractice. Doctors in high stakes environments like the ER or surgery face massive legal risks and the threat of actual prison time for unavoidable bad outcomes. Conversely, opening a skin clinic carries almost zero legal risk, no night shifts, and much higher pay.
The doctors' frustration was that Yoon's policy relied on a trickle down theory of medicine, the idea that if you simply flood the market by increasing the quota by a massive 65% overnight, the overflow of graduates will eventually be desperate enough to take the punishing essential jobs. While the medical association's optics and PR were undeniably terrible, their core grievance was that Yoon's draconian approach was a political bandaid that completely ignored the structural rot driving doctors away from saving lives in the first place
They’re very much not over those players.
He didn't and so he had everything stripped away which sent a very clear message to Government and the police that he was there for the taking.
But he's not the chaebol, he's just a tool for people walking away unscathed to try again at a more opportune time.
In my years watching sports coaches are almost always the first one to be made the fall guy and I've witnessed plenty of situations where I can't really say they're the one at fault. There are two simple reasons in my opinion. Teams invest WAY more money in players so they have to try to commit to them even if the player is potentially not good enough and owners are never going to go "wow I made some bad decisions I should sell the team". All of this is to say coaches are the cheapest and easiest ones to pin the problems on.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_Korean_martial_law_...
Here's a news article from that time: https://m.koreaherald.com/article/10012328
> He declared martial law
Trump has sent federal troops into states that voted against him.
He’s also frequently talked about “the enemy from within” to describe American citizens.
And then there’s ICE…
> suspended and prevented their Congress equivalent from meeting
Trump has shut down the government twice already.
The press just like to blame Democrats despite the fact that it’s the Republicans who are refusing to negotiate.
> ordered the immediate arrest of numerous high level politicians with a goal of arresting hundreds,
To be fair, Trump hasn’t gone that far (yet). But he has fired lots of people from government roles that should have been non-partisan and filled them with his own loyal supporters. Even when those people are clearly not qualified to be doing their new found appointments.
He’s also freed lots of criminals because they either supported him, or paid him.
> issued a declaration that all media and publications had to be approved before publication
Trump has been removing press from the White House and replacing them with publications that support him.
> ordered the power+water for a news broadcaster be cut
Trump hasn’t done that either. But he has sent the FCC to shutdown shows he dislikes. And sued the others into compliance.
The insurrection everyone is referring to is definitely Jan 6th, which it is laughable to compare to an actual insurrection attempt. A few thousand unarmed people waving signs and wearing costumes break into government buildings and take selfies? What would the next steps be that would end in them overthrowing elected leaders?
> What would the next steps be that would end in them overthrowing elected leaders?
I assume the individuals that brought zip ties had more specific plans for the elected officials they didn't approve of.
It wasn't a well-planned insurrection but neither was Yong Suk Yeol's
It was a naked attempt to change the outcome of the election. What are you not understanding about this?
Surely the level of organization and possibility of success need to be taken into consideration? Otherwise every moron with a social media account or a sign could be guilty of insurrection.
Would you consider this an insurrection? In your terms it was "a naked attempt to change the outcome of the election."
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016...
But no, because electors deciding how they cast their votes is a matter of state legislation, not federal, and it is a wildly different thing than the candidate himself trying to install fake electors.
The faithless electors were chosen as part of the political process, and the founders expressly stated that the electors having the freedom to cast their vote was part of the safeguard against mob rule by an uninformed electorate. Hamilton, for example, wrote extensively of this in the federalist papers. This is explicitly one of the reasons why we have the electoral college at all, instead of a popular vote. If anything, I wish they had had the foresight to codify it in the Constitution or Bill of Rights so that states could not prevent it from happening. They wrote extensively of what they wanted the EC to be but did not do enough to make reality match their expectations in a durable manner.
Meanwhile Trump explicitly worked to install a group of illegally selected electors while riling up a mob to attempt to put a halt to the certification.
Trying to compare electors casting their vote based on how the founding fathers envisioned the electoral college as working to a sitting president being involved in a coordinated effort to create and install fake electors, cause the certification of the election to fail by inciting a mob to storm the capitol, and oh, telling Georgia to "find me the votes" is absurd.
Your perception of the electoral college is somewhat biased. The college itself serves a practical purpose - elections in the US are extremely decentralized by design. States can do pretty much whatever they want, only later constrained by various constitutional amendments. So when a state A gives you a number, that number does not necessarily mean the same thing as when state B does the same. The electoral college normalizes election results by requiring each state to convert their numbers into a common format. And instead of relying on the Federal government trying to deal with millions of votes, it's only 538.
Similarly, the scheme in support of Trump was not only not illegal, but even anticipated by the electoral count act which made it such that if the House/Senate disagreed with votes included or excluded by the Vice President, then they were free to overrule it by a simple majority vote. The VP's role was then later changed to a purely ceremonial one in a new law passed in 2022, largely to prevent this angle in the future.
And yes, obviously part of the point of the EC is dealing with a smaller number of votes instead of every vote. None of that is a counterargument to what I said. Again, the founding fathers literally wrote about how faithless electors were a feature and not a bug in their eyes. There's a reason they had the 'Hamilton Electors' moniker.
He certainly would have foreseen at least some shenanigans, but that was probably unavoidable. And the protestors and rioters could have been trivially dispersed at any moment by the Capitol Police which not only has a force of thousands, but even has heavy equipment and gear enabling them to respond to even extreme things like an aerial attack on the Capitol. Instead they deployed a tiny fraction of their force with minimal equipment, and just watched things unfold, all while Twitter actively censored Trump saying things like:
- "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"
- "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"
As for the Electoral College, I am saying that you're taking a fringe view that was indeed genuinely held, but then inappropriately broadly applying it. Hamilton absolutely had a streak of authoritarian elitism in him. And so speaking of the Founding Fathers as a whole, on an issue like this, is not reasonable. Hamilton was highly divisive, and managed to push away just everybody - even those also more in favor of a Federalist system.
(And similarly, it should be clear that an insurrection's nature doesn't depend on whether the crowd is jovial or not.)
Within 36 hours, five people died: including a police officer who died of a stroke a day after being assaulted by rioters and collapsing at the Capitol.
Many people were injured, including 174 police officers. Four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide within seven months. Damage caused by attackers exceeded $2.7 million. It is the only attempted coup d'état directed towards the Federal government in the history of the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito...
The Civil War in the early 1860s doesn't count because they just wanted to secede?
The main plan was sending fake electors with fraudulent certifications and counting on Pence to derail the formal vote count and accept the false slate through a fog of procedural confusion. The fact that Pence refused to go along with the plan and Trump resorted to physically threatening him and Congress doesn't change the fact that their plan was an illegal and fraudulent interference with the verification of the election based on knowingly false claims.
Within 36 hours, five people died: including a police officer who died of a stroke a day after being assaulted by rioters and collapsing at the Capitol.
Many people were injured, including 174 police officers. Four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide within seven months. Damage caused by attackers exceeded $2.7 million. It is the only attempted coup d'état directed towards the Federal government in the history of the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito...
Also, for the rest of them that accepted a pardon, that also necessities an admission of guilt - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/#89-90
So yes, they were guilty of insurrection even if they escaped punishment.
People go to prison for attempted murder every day.
What did you say elsewhere about "good faith"? J6 was a real insurrection attempt.
Royalty in name vs royalty in practice.
I assume that otherwise they would have less of an issue. It’s not like he married someone slight off-white, that would be real grounds for excommunication.
But the trickling of Epstein news is why he's out-of-favor, isn't it?
Took a long time though.
Obviously this guy went off his rocker. His own party had to step in and oppose him.
I do wonder, it doesnt seem like he was trying to install himself as dictator; it seems to me like he may have just had a mental health break. Being a major world leader has to be immense stress.
We really just need to get humans out of the loop. Direct democracy where you vote on everything, or assign your vote to a trusted representative.
Every South Korean president who has served a prison sentence has ultimately been pardoned.Canada's PM Carney spoke recently about the Power of the Powerless essay and the shared lie, when the Green Grocer puts up the "Workers of the world unite" sign. And I kind of fear that shared reticence to speak plainly is causing an even larger inability to talk about the matter at hand than trying to approach it delicately around the edges to convince those who are so hard to communicate with.
Trump has done plenty of real things that are worthy of criticism. Calling Mexicans in general rapists is not something he did.
It was more than that.
In his own words, 'some' of those migrants[1] are good people (/maybe/ - he's apparently never met one), but everyone else...
"They're not sending their best. They're sending people with lots of problems. And they're bringing those problems with us[sic]. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some - I assume - are good people."
[1] being 'sent' here, apparently?
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
This statement first asserted that mexico was deliberately exporting its people to the US (as opposed to people deciding to come of their own accord) and then generalized that they were importing social problems, before making a concession that some of them might not be.
This would be like if I said your HN posts consisted of lies, propaganda, and invective but that I assume some of them were worth reading. I doubt you'd feel the little conciliatory bit at the end balanced out the unfair allegations that preceded it.
In the US, federal prosecutions are ordered by the in-group via public social media posts, rather than by professionals dedicated to the law deciding if there's enough evidence to support a case. Currently, federal prosecutions will never be pursued against the in-group, no matter the evidence.
I'd like the US to return to it's prior stance on what the law means and how it can be used.
We wouldn't have Apple, Netflix, or so many other Bay Area giants without the equal application of law.
I applaud South Korea for pursuing this conviction and achieving a suitable penalty for the breakdown of law at the highest levels. It's quite admirable, as admirable as the UK charging the King's own brother with crimes this morning.
When law breaks down against the powerul, billionaires turn into oligarchs, and all those startups that would have created the next big creative disruption in the economy get squashed, and we all lose out. Inequality of power is a massive risk for any economy.
That has nothing to do with startup and economy. Equality in front of the law is one of the most basic property of any decent democracy.
It is even the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
I would contend that a startup economy can not exist without decent democracy. It's not an either/or as you frame it.
Yes, as the saying goes, the law equally forbids and punishes the poor and the rich if they sleep in the park or under a bridge.
>We wouldn't have Apple, Netflix, or so many other Bay Area giants without the equal application of law.
US has nowhere near "equal application of law", and yet it has these companies.
In fact, if it did have "equal application of law", those companies would have dead, as they get away with things that, if a smaller company or private business did, they'd have the book thrown at them.
We wouldn't have Apple, Netflix, or so many other Bay Area giants without the equal application of law.
It’s the same for dictators, and well pretty much any singular leader.
The factions may fight back and forth, and counting coup by imprisoning the figurehead for one of them certainly has some attraction - but the pendulum swings, and nobody wants to end up really getting punished at the end of the day when it swings away from them.
That’s how you get murderous resistance instead of (relatively) sane transfers of power.