South Korean ex president Yoon Suk Yeol jailed for life for leading insurrection

Yep, and similar thing went in Philippines. The craziest part is that public in general sided with doctors, and against their president on that issue. Even though public would certainly benefit from having more doctors.

It also illustrates what a real insurrection attempt looks like. [1] He declared martial law, suspended and prevented their Congress equivalent from meeting (and directed the military to enforce such), ordered the immediate arrest of numerous high level politicians with a goal of arresting hundreds, issued a declaration that all media and publications had to be approved before publication, ordered the power+water for a news broadcaster be cut, and much more.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_Korean_martial_law_...

One thing worth pointing out is that by the time Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on December 3, 2024, he was already one of the most unpopular presidents in South Korean history. After that his ratings declined even further. This makes for a much smoother enforcement of the law to make him accountable for his actions.

He'll eventually get pardoned like presideng Park and the Samsung crown prince, Lee Jae-yong. But he'll probably do 10 or 15 years anyway.

Okay at the same time they had the daughter of one of those autocrats fairly recently as PM, who then resigned due to influence peddling by a religious advisor (and did crazy things like her daughter didn’t go to class yet got amazing grades because her teachers were made to do her work, which she posted about on social media.)

They’re very much not over those players.

Why is his favorability rating so high?

It's not the King, it's the government, really. In any case, one of the reason, if not the main reason, is that the scandal has unfolded very publicly so that covering it up is not an option as it might have been otherwise or previously.

If you play quarterback, you take the blame when things go south even if the coach is the one scheming.

It is mind blowing. I guess he didn't have enough allies in power? All the corrupt politicians around the world must be laughing at him right now.

The last 10 years in Peru were a bit extreme in that category.

I mean Andrew is an extreme case. If he weren’t as out-of-favour I imagine nothing would have happened, and this has been _entirely_ forced by external information.

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.

Andrew lost his title 'Prince' a while ago. At that point he wasn't a royalty in name anymore.

Took a long time though.

I notice a reticence for people to speak plainly about things these days, because certain topics must be danced around at the edges in order for there to be any productive conversation.

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.

Yes seems like a good precedent for democracies globally

Aiming for the bushes?

Yes. I am surprised too

Depends on what you mean by justice. In the US, the law is now merely a tool used to give privileges to the in-group at the cost of the out-group. For the in-group it protects them from harm but never constrains their actions. For the out-group the law never protects them from harm, but constrains them.

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.

[flagged]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(essay)

"In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should prioritize their conscience over compliance with unjust laws, asserting that passive submission to government authority enables injustice."

> One of the bedrocks of a startup economy is that the rule of law applies equally to the powerful and to the less powerful.

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...

>One of the bedrocks of a startup economy is that the rule of law applies equally to the powerful and to the less powerful.

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 more likely that he gets pardoned after a few years. President Park Geun-Hye only served less than 4 years of her combined 32-year prison sentence.

Well Park Geun-hye is still alive.