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.
And the answer is all three. Prior to the coup he sent letters all over the free world asking for help in holding off the totalitarian schemings of Allende. During the coup he penned a letter of endorsement for the CDP. After the coup he defended its necessity and participated in the drafting of the new constitution.
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.
Your word games aside, he retained all of the main features of the 1925 constitution and incorporated them into the 1980 constitution that exists today. It was necessary to convene a constitutional convention because of the damage Allende had already done to the 1925 document well before Pinochet ever arrived.
He was the elected president of Chile.
In 1970 he was. By 1973 he had seized dictatorial powers into his office and was operating in criminal breach of the constitution, including directly contradicting the Chilean Supreme Court. Criminality in office forfeits electoral legitimacy.
He had not been removed from office under the powers outlined in the constitution.
Only because he committed suicide before they had the chance to bring him to trial.
He stood accused of abusing the power of the presidency
It was more than simple accusation. The Supreme Court ruled his were actions unconstitutional. They were the final authority and Allende was obliged to abide by their rulings. He didn't though.
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."
Your reading is a specious reading at best (although it is also one that's not uncommon to leftist pro-Allende bloggers, hence what I suspect to be your source for it). The clause in question actually damns Allende rather than Pinochet, which is among the reasons why it was among the charges made against him by the Chamber of Deputies. Given the rulings against him and record of his actions it is difficult to dispute that Allende had assumed rights and powers beyond those conferred to his office by law.
As arresting a criminal is not an assumption of unconferred power, Pinochet's attempt to apprehend Allende cannot be construed as a violation. Nor can it be construed as a usurpation of Allende's office, considering that Allende lost that office not by force or expulsion, but rather by his own hand when he chose to commit suicide rather than face trial for his crimes before the legislature and judiciary.