tell that to the iraqis.
His refusal to obey the Chilean Supreme Court was one of the offenses against the constitution outlined by the Chamber of Deputies. Given that evidence, it's pretty safe to say that the Chilean judicial system was not on Allende's side.
it's funny that you think that it's "pretty safe to say" whose side the Chilean judicial system was on when the issue at hand is the Constitutionality of the CoD's actions and Pinochet's coup had legitimacy or mere "support".
What a sophist you are!
They've already affirmed it themselves in their actions and statements. Both the shias and sunnis in Iraq want worldwide Islamotopia, the only difference being who's on top.
it's funny that you think that it's "pretty safe to say" whose side the Chilean judicial system was on when the issue at hand is the Constitutionality of the CoD's actions and Pinochet's coup had legitimacy or mere "support".
You asked what the judiciary would have to say on the matter, suggesting it is an arbiter of legitimacy. I pointed out that the Chilean Supreme Court - aka its highest ranking judicial body - went against Allende with the rest of the government. In fact they ruled him in breach of the constitution on multiple counts, which would affirm the finding of the CoD that Allende was operating outside of the constitution as well.
In short, the two other branches of the Chilean government determined that Allende's legitimacy was forfeit. If Allende had no legitimacy, then his overthrow cannot be a violation of what was not there. Meanwhile legitimacy was conferred upon his successor Pinochet by the CoD's request to oust Allende, the subsequent endorsement of the coup after Allende's ouster, and the convention Pinochet called to repair and restore the constitutional government that Allende had breached.