In a demolishing for and much of its military and civil allies united around a coup adventure, one aspect draws attention and remains intriguing: the omission of the commanders in relation to the camps against the quarters.
Not that the Attorney General of the Republic, signatory to the complaint, escape the matter. He even mentioned the camps using an adjective to express outrage. In narrating the insistence of the so -called “criminal organization” in insisting on the accusation that the 2022 election had been fraudulent, he writes:
“This was the way of maintaining the militancy of the President of the Animated Republic, asking for military intervention, in infamous camps assembled in front of army barracks in various capitals of the country. Military coup, to provide the results of the polls to be eliminated through insubmission to the democratic rules of transition of power. “
But the prosecutor confirms the evaluation of the Federal Police that, among the three commanders of the Armed Forces, only one – the Navy Admiral Almir Garnier – participated in the coup plot.
Gonet gathers elements – all testimonials, from the whistleblower Mauro Cid, the commanders themselves and others, and the exchange of messages – to say that the commanders of the army, Freire Gomes, and the FAB, Baptista, Jr, did not endorse the coup plans of the coup “criminal organization”. The complaint, however, relativizes the obvious omission of military chiefs – three – in relation to camps.
He opened a title in the complaint to address the theme (“Note of the Armed Forces Commanders on 11.11.2022”). It refers to the signed by Freire Gomes, Baptista Jr and Garnier that the camps where they were clashed by a coup expressed “free manifestation of thought”, “freedom of meeting” and “freedom of locomotion in the national territory” guaranteed by the Constitution.
Based on Lieutenant Colonel Mauro Cid’s denunciation, Gonet writes that the joint statement of military chiefs “was issued by order of then-President Jair Messias Bolsonaro, with the aim of keeping his supporters mobilized.” The confirmation of this thesis, in the interpretation of the prosecutor, would come from a message from Cid to Freire Gomes where the then order assistant says the movements were “feeling safe to take a step ahead.”
Soon ahead, Gonet even uses the “apparent military support” construction. Now, the endorsement of the armed forces commanders to the “infamous” camps – the adjective, do not forget, is from the prosecutor – is crystal clear in the joint note.
It does not have to be a scholar of laws or armed forces to know what illegal order is not fulfilled. If the order came from Bolsonaro to stimulate the Campo-Incubators-of-Golpe, the discordant commanders would be up to it and deliver it and deliver their positions. They didn’t.
It is also to wonder why, in his testimony to the PF on March 2, 2024, Freire Gomes did not say he signed the note and kept the camps by Bolsonaro’s order. Asked if the note “was used as support of the Armed Forces for demonstrations of supporters who were camped in front of the military facilities,” the army commander replied no.
“That such an interpretation was made in a mistaken way”; “that the objective was to demonstrate that the demonstrations should not occur in front of the military facilities, but in the context of the Legislative Power.” It turns out that there is no excerpt from the note that sustains.
It is natural for Gonet to criticize camps in front of the barracks. Today is a current opinion between criminalists and STF ministers who were the scammer adventure’s laboratory and should have been dismantled. Both the case minister of the case at the Supreme Court, Alexandre de Moraes, and some of his peers in the Court, notably Gilmar Mendes, the maintenance of those structures with connivance of the commanders.
For Moraes, “it was a very big mistake.” He recalled that he said this to Bolsonaro government authorities, the Federal Police and the Attorney General’s Office. “There is no right to the meeting, there is no freedom of expression in you camp in front of a barracks asking the armed forces to overthrow the democratic regime,” he said.
Gilmar defined as “a somewhat exotic understanding” the idea defended by the commanders that the camps were assured by the freedom of expression provided for in the Constitution and cited a case in which the German constitutional court prohibited protesters protesting in front of barracks to prevent proliferation prevent of missiles.
