Not really. It’s good for a while when the freedoms of your country are being attacked by another country. It’s a way to get a country to be put on pause while military issues are being handled and everybody is supposed to work together in unison. What it’s not good for is to use it on local opponents or your own people. So just like any other weapon or tool it should be used correctly by people with good intentions. That’s what it’s there for anyways. Almost every country has a form of martial law.
You are talking exactly like a dictator. Freedom is not something you give to people and take away when needed. A switch to take freedom away shouldn’t exist and whoever press it is attacking freedom themself.
Almost every country has a form of martial law.
Almost every country is a police state rooted in murder and violence ruled by corrupted politicians.
So, you can’t accept the idea that in very specific circumstances it can be a good thing for cops to tell you to do something without having to reach for a court order? Like an emergency evacuation order that needs to be secret during that very same hour for whatever good reason or the checkpointing of people in a region where you know that a major prison break just happened?
Not talking about the random pig just thinking “hmm, I’m the boss now” out of nowhere; I’m talking about someone like the head of the police forces giving an order indiscriminately that is limited to a temporal scope.
Even things like “masks are mandatory” can be seen as a “muh freedoms” violation.
If you take things to such extremes, can we have the freedom not to have such freedom? Apparently is what the entire world wants except for a few thousand internet folks
I can’t tell if these kind of comments in support of human rights being curtailed in secret are honest. There are already protocols in place for many jurisdictions that permit declarations of emergency in different contexts - like an environmental disaster. Many of these Emergency protocols are subjected to strict application and review.
Police are expected to train and learn the conditions that should exist when exercising commands to members of the public - such as the differences between reasonable suspicions or exigent circumstances. Or at what point are they simply making inquiries or when they’ve conducted an actual stop of a person. Their conduct is regularly subjected to review when it comes to trial - and some times more immediately if the public is upset by way of civilian committees or other types of review.
Perhaps things get more “murky” when discussing Five Eyes issues and how warrants are issued, but even still there’s a process in place - however flawed or imperfect it may be.
I think the take away from all that is rights are “enshrined” and must demonstrably be treated as a priority even if the actual outcomes are at issue or visibly imperfect.
I just want to add that even elsewhere on this lemmy post, there was mention that the military did deploy. But, soldiers were reportedly not motivated to secure GOV buildings because they’re also aware of their own responsibilities - including the need to follow lawful orders and their Rules of Engagement. If there were no checks in place for these exercises of power, no forums of justice to deal with improper violations of rights, people would just start going full vigilante and what’s the point of hundreds of years of rule of law at that point.
And yes I think the whole thing was an embarrassing stunt on the most highest profile stage South Korea has to offer.
I obviously do not support this application of martial law. I pointed at a mask mandate because it fits your dictatorship vision.
I also didn’t say a thing about kidnapping. Telling people to “get off a plane” without a justification is not kidnapping. If you say “get off this plane, we think it has a bomb on it” things wouldn’t fly any better with people freaking over and having panic attacks. You can do the explaining once people are out of the plane.
You should really learn more about what exactly makes a country because unconditional freedom does not exist. You are part of a country that has laws and a bunch of freedoms. Those freedoms exist because other laws protect it.
Almost every country is a police state rooted in murder and violence ruled by corrupted politicians.
I do not deny that a lot of countries are becoming very authoritarian. But martial law is just a tool, which can be used for good but also for bad. In this case it doesn’t seem to be a good reason, but that does not mean it’s a bad thing by itself.
“Their ranks were gradually increased by the influx of young men escaping the Italian Social Republic’s draft, as well as from deserters from the RSI armed forces. By August 1944, the number of partisans had grown to 100,000, and it escalated to more than 250,000 with the final insurrection in April”
Not really. It’s good for a while when the freedoms of your country are being attacked by another country. It’s a way to get a country to be put on pause while military issues are being handled and everybody is supposed to work together in unison. What it’s not good for is to use it on local opponents or your own people. So just like any other weapon or tool it should be used correctly by people with good intentions. That’s what it’s there for anyways. Almost every country has a form of martial law.
Disagree.
You are talking exactly like a dictator. Freedom is not something you give to people and take away when needed. A switch to take freedom away shouldn’t exist and whoever press it is attacking freedom themself.
Almost every country is a police state rooted in murder and violence ruled by corrupted politicians.
So, you can’t accept the idea that in very specific circumstances it can be a good thing for cops to tell you to do something without having to reach for a court order? Like an emergency evacuation order that needs to be secret during that very same hour for whatever good reason or the checkpointing of people in a region where you know that a major prison break just happened?
Not talking about the random pig just thinking “hmm, I’m the boss now” out of nowhere; I’m talking about someone like the head of the police forces giving an order indiscriminately that is limited to a temporal scope.
Even things like “masks are mandatory” can be seen as a “muh freedoms” violation.
If you take things to such extremes, can we have the freedom not to have such freedom? Apparently is what the entire world wants except for a few thousand internet folks
I can’t tell if these kind of comments in support of human rights being curtailed in secret are honest. There are already protocols in place for many jurisdictions that permit declarations of emergency in different contexts - like an environmental disaster. Many of these Emergency protocols are subjected to strict application and review.
Police are expected to train and learn the conditions that should exist when exercising commands to members of the public - such as the differences between reasonable suspicions or exigent circumstances. Or at what point are they simply making inquiries or when they’ve conducted an actual stop of a person. Their conduct is regularly subjected to review when it comes to trial - and some times more immediately if the public is upset by way of civilian committees or other types of review.
Perhaps things get more “murky” when discussing Five Eyes issues and how warrants are issued, but even still there’s a process in place - however flawed or imperfect it may be.
I think the take away from all that is rights are “enshrined” and must demonstrably be treated as a priority even if the actual outcomes are at issue or visibly imperfect.
I just want to add that even elsewhere on this lemmy post, there was mention that the military did deploy. But, soldiers were reportedly not motivated to secure GOV buildings because they’re also aware of their own responsibilities - including the need to follow lawful orders and their Rules of Engagement. If there were no checks in place for these exercises of power, no forums of justice to deal with improper violations of rights, people would just start going full vigilante and what’s the point of hundreds of years of rule of law at that point.
And yes I think the whole thing was an embarrassing stunt on the most highest profile stage South Korea has to offer.
Nothing that belongs to the public needs to be secret. You are describing kidnapping people.
You are the one taking things to extremes trying to compare martial law with wearing masks and making stupid analogies.
I obviously do not support this application of martial law. I pointed at a mask mandate because it fits your dictatorship vision.
I also didn’t say a thing about kidnapping. Telling people to “get off a plane” without a justification is not kidnapping. If you say “get off this plane, we think it has a bomb on it” things wouldn’t fly any better with people freaking over and having panic attacks. You can do the explaining once people are out of the plane.
You should really learn more about what exactly makes a country because unconditional freedom does not exist. You are part of a country that has laws and a bunch of freedoms. Those freedoms exist because other laws protect it.
I do not deny that a lot of countries are becoming very authoritarian. But martial law is just a tool, which can be used for good but also for bad. In this case it doesn’t seem to be a good reason, but that does not mean it’s a bad thing by itself.
I encourage you to do the same and learn the history of how your country come to be.
Name one time it was used for good
Lmao.
Last time was when Nazi Germany invaded my country.
This is what happened last time Nazi Germany invaded mine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_resistance_movement
“Their ranks were gradually increased by the influx of young men escaping the Italian Social Republic’s draft, as well as from deserters from the RSI armed forces. By August 1944, the number of partisans had grown to 100,000, and it escalated to more than 250,000 with the final insurrection in April”
I didn’t ask.