South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declares emergency martial law
South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared “emergency martial law” on Tuesday, accusing the country’s opposition of controlling the parliament, sympathizing with North Korea and paralyzing the government with anti-state activities.
Yoon made the announcement during a televised briefing, vowing to “eradicate pro-North Korean forces and protect the constitutional democratic order.” He declared the step as critical in defending the country’s constitutional order. It wasn’t immediately clear how the steps would affect the country’s governance and democracy.
“I declare martial law to protect the free Republic of Korea from the threat of North Korean communist forces, to eradicate the despicable pro-North Korean anti-state forces that are plundering the freedom and happiness of our people and to protect the free constitutional order,” Yoon said.
The surprise move sent shockwaves through the country, which had a series of authoritarian leaders early in its history but has been considered democratic since the 1980s. The Korean won was down sharply against the U.S. dollar.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Entrance to parliament blocked: news agency
Yonhap news agency reported that the entrance to the parliament building was blocked.
“Tanks, armoured personnel carriers and soldiers with guns and knives will rule the country,” Lee Jae-myung, leader of the opposition Democratic Party, which has the majority in parliament, said in a livestream online.
“The economy of the Republic of Korea will collapse irretrievably. My fellow citizens, please come to the National Assembly.”
Yoon — whose approval rating has dipped in recent months — has struggled to push his agenda against an opposition-controlled parliament since taking office in 2022.
Yoon’s conservative People Power Party had been locked in an impasse with the liberal opposition Democratic Party over next year’s budget bill. He has also been dismissing calls for independent investigations into scandals involving his wife and top officials, drawing quick, strong rebukes from his political rivals.
The Democratic Party reportedly called an emergency meeting of its lawmakers following Yoon’s announcement.
Published at Tue, 03 Dec 2024 14:02:08 +0000
A parent’s pardon: Joe Biden’s precedent-setting move magnifies power of the presidency
Joe Biden is drawing condemnation from political allies for establishing a new precedent in American history with the first-ever pardon for presidential offspring.
And all they can do, really, is complain.
Because the president’s blanket pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, last weekend highlights the expansive power of the U.S. presidency and it may only be growing.
There’s virtually nothing Congress can do to limit the power of the pardon, reaffirmed in multiple Supreme Court decisions over the generations.
In 1866 and 1871, the high court ruled Congress cannot undo a pardon; in 1974, it ruled Congress cannot modify, abridge or diminish the power, enshrined in the Constitution.
What about amending the Constitution? Fat chance of that. It requires three-quarters of the states, and potentially a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress.
This is coupled with a new Supreme Court decision that makes it even harder to charge a president over acts committed while in office, or even to collect evidence for a trial.
U.S. President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter, shielding him from prison over federal felony gun and tax convictions, despite previous promises to avoid using presidential powers for family benefit.
One of the country’s founders, George Mason, feared that the pardon power could destroy the American republic and re-establish a monarchy.
And now an incoming president who’s already been accused of being a repeat abuser of the pardon power is about to take office.
In his first term, Donald Trump pardoned several friends, political allies, people who agreed not to testify against him, and his nominee for the next ambassador to France: Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law.
For his second term, Trump has already said he’ll pardon supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; he’s now indicating he’ll use the Hunter Biden pardon as an excuse.
A number of Democrats expressed alarm Monday that Biden’s move will only complicate their own future efforts to call out Trump’s abuses.
“President Biden’s decision to pardon his son was wrong,” Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, a Democrat, said in a post on social media platform X.
“This was an improper use of power, it erodes trust in our government, and it emboldens others to bend justice to suit their interests.”
There were a number of such laments from Capitol Hill.
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet said the president put personal interest above duty and further erodes public faith in the justice system.
One congressman, Greg Landsman, said: “As a father, I get it.” But as someone who wants to restore public faith in government, he called it a setback.
Biden has defenders, too
Not everyone was so critical.
Some of Biden’s defenders were more brazen than others. One congresswoman, Jasmine Crockett, actually congratulated Biden.
“Way to go, Joe,” Crockett, a former public defender, said on MSNBC. She called the case against Hunter Biden driven by politics and said the president had done the right thing.
In a sweeping U.S. presidential act before his term is up next month, Joe Biden has pardoned his son Hunter Biden, after previously claiming he would not do so. Andrew Chang breaks down the pardon, which covers any criminal act Hunter may have committed in the last 10 years, and explains why the president changed course.
She also lamented that a convicted criminal is about to become president and added: “For anyone that wants to clutch their pearls now … I would say take a look in the mirror.”
In an interview with CBC News, a former federal prosecutor, and frequent Trump critic, took a more measured approach.
When asked whether Biden’s pardon was unethical, or hypocritical, given how often the White House denied it would happen, Nick Akerman essentially concurred.
“I can’t disagree with that at all,” Akerman, a former New York prosecutor who worked on the Watergate case, told CBC News Network.
But he added that he can’t fault Biden, either.
He said the incoming president has repeatedly indicated that he plans to punish political enemies; Trump has also placed hardcore partisans in key justice roles.
“I think it’s a legitimate [concern],” Akerman said.
“If you had your kid who was going to go through the federal prison system, and you knew it was going to be run by political hacks who have promised retribution against Donald Trump’s enemies, I don’t know how many people wouldn’t do the same thing under these circumstances.”
Controversial uses of pardon power
Akerman called Trump the biggest abuser of the pardon system so far.
Previously, Bill Clinton was criticized for pardoning his half-brother, Roger, on his last day in office, for old cocaine-distribution convictions, along with a wealthy donor.
Other controversial uses of the power include pardons of former Confederates after the Civil War and the amnesty granted to former president Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal.
Constitutional scholar UCLA’s Jon Michaels, interviewed by CBC News, shared Akerman’s assessment, summing up his mixed feelings this way: “Is it a healthy way to run a country? No — but we’re not in a particularly healthy moment as a country.”
This first-ever paternal pardon involves Hunter Biden’s conviction on taxes which were paid late. He also illegally owned a gun for 11 days, after lying on a mandatory form about his past drug use. He was convicted this year and faced a potentially long sentence.
In explaining the pardon, Biden said these sorts of charges are almost never brought, and would not have been prosecuted here if not for the political pressure.
“It is clear that Hunter was treated differently,” the president explained.
“No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong … Enough is enough.”
What Hunter Biden was — and wasn’t — charged with
Republicans have long insisted there’s a more complicated story that could have resulted in additional charges and more awkward questions for the Biden family.
Hunter Biden never registered as a foreign agent, despite receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from Chinese, Romanian and Ukrainian entities, in part to help make introductions for his clients to American officials.
Depending on where you land on the political spectrum, the controversy involving U.S. President Joe Biden’s son Hunter is either one of the greatest corruption scandals in American history or a right-wing partisan joke. CBC’s Alex Panetta breaks down what we know, what we don’t and what’s next.
At a contentious court hearing last year, a judge asked if Biden could, potentially, still be charged for being an unregistered foreign agent.
This set off a heated exchange between Biden’s lawyers and the prosecution. That exchange resulted in an earlier plea deal falling apart.
Trump publicly laced into the deal, criticizing the prosecutor, whom he himself had appointed, and called him a coward.
Prosecutors later added new gun charges, for which Hunter Biden was convicted this year, and was awaiting his sentence.
That all ended Sunday. In an unusually broad pardon, his father absolved him of any federal crime he might have committed, from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 1, 2024.
Some legal writers have argued that a commutation might have been fair — meaning amnesty from a prison penalty.
But that wouldn’t have protected Hunter Biden from any additional prosecution over any past federal charges; this will.
Though the president has his defenders, the prevailing reaction in Washington was summed up in a column by Politico’s head of news, titled, “Joe Biden’s Parting Insult.”
“Voters now know what his word as a Biden is worth,” said the piece, which criticized the president for breaking his no-pardon promise.
“Biden is exiting a presidency that he insisted was about saving democracy by delivering an ostentatious vote of no confidence in the institutions that his successor most obviously intends to attack.”
Published at Tue, 03 Dec 2024 09:00:41 +0000
