Army omits data and cites weak version about action on 1/8 – 11/12/2023 – Power

The Army refused to inform the author and how the order was given to surround the coup camp in Brasília with a line of tanks and soldiers on the night of January 8th.

The barrier prevented Military Police agents from entering to dismantle the Bolsonaro concentration in front of the headquarters, hours after the attack on the headquarters of the three Powers.

In response presented after request from Sheet based on the Access to Information Law, the Army limited itself to stating that it did not fail to comply with a court order to demobilize the camp and that it used “the expected operational techniques and damage control”.

In the appeal phase, the Army also presented insufficient responses and a weak version of the actions of January 8 to the CGU (Comptroller General of the Union). The agency said it did not use armored vehicles to protect the camp or prevent the Federal District Police from entering.

The military claimed that the combat vehicles served to surround the area and prevent entry and exit into the camp. The Army also stated that the tanks were used to “transport personnel” who worked to isolate the square.

That night, however, dozens of soldiers and three Guarani armored vehicles, the main military vehicle produced in Brazil, positioned themselves at the entrance to the military sector, at a time when the PM was prepared to enter the area and dismantle the camp.

The barrier frustrated plans to quickly end the Bolsonarist mobilization. Afterwards, members of the government and representatives of the Armed Forces had tense meetings until reaching an agreement — with the approval of President Lula (PT) — to dismantle the camp the following morning.

In testimony to the Legislative Chamber of the Federal District, General Gustavo Henrique Dutra, former head of the CMP (Planalto Military Command), also denied using tanks to impede the PM’s action or protect the coup plotters. He said the armored vehicles were used to surround the area.

“When we isolated the squares, people thought we were isolating the square to protect them. And they went to sleep,” said Dutra.

Colonel Jorge Eduardo Naime Barreto, former head of the Operational Department of the DF Military Police, told the CPI of district deputies that the line of soldiers and tanks was protecting the camp.

“When I looked back, there was an Army shock line, set up with armored vehicles, and, as interesting as it seemed, they were not facing the camp. They were facing the police, protecting the camp,” said Barreto.

The CGU considered the Army’s response to the process based on the Access to Information Law insufficient and requested the delivery of documents on “the aforementioned isolation order”.

According to the Comptroller’s Office, the military again omitted information and did not disclose any paper, claiming that the questioning was unrelated to the doubts originally presented by the Sheet. The control body then decided to oblige the Army to inform within 15 days who gave the order to use the tanks and how.

“It is not clear the identity of the authority that ordered the isolation of the area to dissuade protesters from entering the location and how the said order was given, as requested by the citizen in his initial request”, stated the CGU in an opinion.

The Comptroller also criticized the military’s responses. The control body highlighted that “refusing to provide information required under this Law [de Acesso à Informação] constitutes illegal conduct that even gives rise to the responsibility of a public or military agent”.

For the CGU, even though there was no order to prevent the PM’s action, “as declared by the Army Command, it is public knowledge that there was a military operation that day, which prevented the entry of any people, including security forces civilians, within the security perimeter of Fort Apache”.

According to the Comptroller, the Army also omitted information about records made in the “Book of Parties” on the day of the coup acts.

This document must indicate “all occurrences that occurred in the service, including the departure or entry of troops for reasons other than instruction or normal service, related to the events and facts relating to January 8, 2023”, stated the control body.

Asked about the CGU’s decision, the Army said it “does not comment on statements made by other bodies”.

“This is the procedure that has guided the respectful relationship between the Brazilian Army and other institutions of the Republic. All clarifications regarding the events in question will be provided exclusively to the bodies responsible for investigations”, the body further stated.