President Yoon Suk Yeol Defends Martial Law Declaration, Accuses Opposition of Fake News and Treason
SEOUL – President Yoon Suk Yeol’s legal team has launched a robust defense of the December 3rd martial law declaration, accusing the opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) of orchestrating a campaign of fake news and treasonous activities aimed at destabilizing the government and ultimately seizing power. In a 62-page response submitted to the Constitutional Court, Yoon’s lawyers argue that the DPK, in conjunction with allied media outlets and far-left YouTubers, manufactured a climate of fear and unrest to justify calls for impeachment. The president’s legal team urged the court to reject the impeachment motion, characterizing it as a politically motivated attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government.
The core of the defense rests on the assertion that the DPK systematically disseminated false information, manipulating public opinion and coercing individuals into providing false testimony against the president. This "fake news factory," as the legal team termed it, worked in concert with sympathetic media outlets, allegedly controlled by labor unions, to amplify the propaganda and incite public anxiety. The response specifically named controversial broadcaster Kim Ou-joon as a key figure in spreading conspiracy theories and fueling anti-government sentiment. The lawyers argued that this coordinated disinformation campaign created an artificial crisis, necessitating the declaration of martial law to prevent widespread unrest.
According to the president’s legal team, the martial law declaration was a preemptive measure designed to avert large-scale protests orchestrated by the DPK and its affiliated organizations, including the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and pro-North Korea groups. They argued that these groups have a history of mobilizing crowds for disruptive demonstrations and that their rhetoric in the lead-up to the declaration indicated an imminent threat of widespread chaos. The deployment of troops, they maintain, was essential to maintain order and prevent violence. They cited the DPK leader’s call for supporters to gather outside the National Assembly, claiming it created confusion that could have escalated without military intervention. The presence of troops, they argue, ultimately prevented injuries and bloodshed.
Beyond accusations of orchestrating unrest, the president’s legal team leveled explosive charges against the DPK, accusing them of jeopardizing South Korea’s sovereignty through their allegiances with China and North Korea. The response characterized the DPK as a party promoting pro-China, anti-American, and anti-Japanese sentiments, unfit to be considered a national party. They further alleged that the DPK attempted to exploit its legislative dominance to enable electoral fraud and compromise national security through espionage. These severe accusations further underscore the deep political divisions within South Korea and the escalating tensions between the ruling party and the opposition.
The president’s defense also raises critical questions about the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches of government. Yoon’s legal team argues that the authority to declare martial law is an inherent presidential power, granted by the constitution and entrusted to the president by the people through election. They maintain that this power includes immunity for decisions made during emergencies, even if errors in judgment occur. They insist that such decisions should not be subject to judicial review and that any perceived missteps do not constitute grounds for impeachment. This assertion challenges the judiciary’s ability to oversee executive actions, particularly in times of crisis.
The response filed by President Yoon’s legal team paints a stark picture of political intrigue, accusing the opposition of engaging in a concerted effort to undermine the government through disinformation, manipulation, and even treason. By framing the impeachment motion as a politically motivated power grab fueled by a fabricated crisis, the president’s lawyers aim to discredit the opposition and preserve the executive branch’s authority. The Constitutional Court is now faced with the complex task of sifting through these competing narratives and determining the legality and legitimacy of the martial law declaration and the subsequent impeachment proceedings. The court’s decision will have profound implications for the future of South Korean politics and the balance of power within the government.
