Do you not think it has a bit of a “when you strike at a king, you must kill him” implication? One can imagine plenty of good reasons for aiming at excluding the authority or challenging the constitutional order of a (corrupt) state. South Korea itself does not exactly lack a quite recent history of dictatorship and military coups.
There certainly can be legit reasons to commit an insurrection.
But my complaint is when somebody unquestionably commits an insurrection for a fundamentally wrong and corrupt reason and then is not charged, tried, nor convicted of the same.
What SK is doing right is holding powerful insurrecting wannabe dictators to account for their misdeeds. What we did is shove it under the rug then re-elect the SOB. With the completely predictable outcome that we’re only starting to experience the least bad aspects of. And they’re already plenty bad.
To be achingly fair, Yoon published a decree, beyond plausible deniability. Our insurrector (not a word, apparently) used the godfather approach, allowing grunts and nods and lack of appropriate action to let events take their course. Not a justification or even an excuse, just a difference.
That’s quite the Monty Hall problem, isn’t it?
Getting back to the story, the court’s decision centered on this.
And this is something the SCOTUS should’ve already known and applied in regard to a certain incident about five years ago.
So, why did he not get the death penalty? (The bolding is mine.)
That’s another lesson for a certain foreign governmental body, isn’t it?
Let’s hope he’s not pardoned by a future president.