Not really. Eduardo Frei Montalva concluded as much. Considering that he was President of Chile from 1964-1970 and a leader of the center-left CDP at the time of the coup, you'd be hard pressed to argue that he was not an informed observer of Chile.
The fact that he didn't is perhaps the strongest evidence.
Your history is mistaken yet again. By the time of the coup the Chilean constitution was already in shreds due to Allende. Pinochet set about to restore constitutional government almost immediately. In 1976 he convened a constitutional commission consisting of the country's most respected political leaders including 2 former presidents, and tasked them with drafting the document. It was completed in 1979 and put before the voters, where it was approved, in 1980. Pinochet abided by its terms and voluntarily yielded office to an election in 1990.
Sounds like you're favoring the tyranny of a politically correct majority over the rule of law.
You've yet to show what "rule of law" gave sanction to Allende in 1973. In fact, you've yet to establish your original comment on this topic, namely that you considered Allende "legitimate."
A ruler's legitimacy is a prerequisite of his power under the rule of law. If Allende was not a legitimate ruler at the time of the coup, then overthrowing him cannot be a violation of the rule of law.
This one's a real piece of work, BTW. This thread started out with him making apologies for islamic jihadis and generally bashing western Christian civilization at every chance he got.
Part of the conversation turned to Pinochet/Allende about a hundred posts back. Naturally, he's quite fond of proclaiming Allende's "legitimacy" and thinks Pinochet is the devil incarnate.
Did he say that before, during, or after Pinochet's dictatorship? Maybe he just wanted to prove his bona fides to the military dictatorship to avoid being tortured in a soccer stadium or somesuch.
Your history is mistaken yet again.
If my history is mistaken about Chile's 1925 constitution, the one you seem to claim Pinochet was protecting, please tell me exactly when the 1925 constitution was observed after Pinochet's coup.
You've yet to show what "rule of law" gave sanction to Allende in 1973.
He was the elected president of Chile. He had not been removed from office under the powers outlined in the constitution. He stood accused of abusing the power of the presidency, but he was still the legitimate president.
You'll remember that this debate started when you suggested that Pinochet's coup could be considered a Just War. By your definition of Aquinas and St. Augustine's Just War theories, that would require Pinochet to have the legitimacy to wage such a war. Under the constitution, this would be considered in violation of article 3, which states that "Ninguna persona o reuinion de personas pueden tomar el título o representaticion del pueblo, arrogarse sus derechos, ni hacer peticiones en su nombre. La infraccion de este artículo es sedicion."
Which means that had Pinochet actually preserved the constitution you claim he was defending, he would stand charged with sedition for illegitimately assuming the powers of the state.