The DP must stop including treason charges

Home > Opinion > Editorials

print dictionary print

The DP must stop including treason charges

The Democratic Party (DP) pushed through the passage of a new special counsel bill, referred to as the “Insurrection Special Counsel Law,” in the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee Monday. The DP plans to bring the bill to a plenary vote this week. This new proposal comes after the failure to pass a previous version of the bill on Jan. 8. The party claims that by transferring the authority to recommend special prosecutor candidates from the opposition to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it has addressed previous points of contention.
 
However, the DP has reignited controversy by including charges of treason in the scope of the special counsel’s investigation. The bill specifies “overseas troop deployments to conflict zones, operation of loudspeakers along the border, increased distribution of anti-North Korea leaflets, drone infiltration into Pyongyang, direct retaliation against North Korean provocations and inducement of attacks near the Northern Limit Line (NLL)” as areas of inquiry. The DP alleges that President Yoon Suk-yeol intentionally provoked military clashes with North Korea through such actions. The discovery of similar notations in the confiscated notebook of Noh Sang-won, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has only fueled the controversy.
 
Including treason-related charges in the bill raises serious concerns. Most notably, distinguishing between legitimate deterrence measures and deliberate attempts to provoke conflict appears highly subjective. For instance, deploying loudspeakers at the border was a response to North Korea’s indiscriminate release of propaganda balloons filled with waste materials. Labeling such actions as treason seems perplexing. According to the DP’s logic, virtually any policy opposed by Pyongyang could be deemed treasonous. Similarly, the deployment of observers to conflict zones, likely referencing the mission to Ukraine, raises questions — how does assessing the combat capabilities of North Korean forces constitute treason? In fact, such measures are vital for national security.
 
Unrestrained investigations targeting military and intelligence agencies could compromise sensitive military secrets, posing grave security risks. This would not only erode South Korea’s preparedness against North Korea but also chill decision-making within its armed forces. Moreover, constitutional scholars note that North Korea, classified as an antistate entity, does not qualify as a foreign state under the legal framework for treason charges. Additionally, the notes found in Noh’s possession remain ambiguous — they could reflect personal thoughts rather than implemented policies. If credible evidence of intentional provocation emerges during an investigation, the scope can be broadened later. Launching a sweeping probe into Yoon’s North Korea policies at this stage would only deepen political discord. It is advisable to exclude treason-related charges from the special counsel bill.
 
The People Power Party (PPP) must act swiftly to present its own version of a special counsel bill. In the revote, the special counsel bill failed by just two votes, with 198 in favor. Continued hesitation risks seeing the bill pass during the next revote. The PPP leadership must draft a balanced bill that even its moderate members can support. Only then can it compel the DP to reconsider its hard-line approach and return to the negotiating table.
 
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.  
Log in to Twitter or Facebook account to connect
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
help-image Social comment?
s
lock icon

To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.

Standards Board Policy (0/250자)