Brazil confronts military officers accused of plotting a coup in historic trial
SAO PAULO (AP) — When Lt. Col. Mauro Cid arrived at Brazil's Supreme Court on Tuesday to testify against his onetime ally, former Defense Minister Gen. Walter Braga Netto, he did not salute the senior officer.
It was a departure from military protocol that underscored how the country's once hugely popular military has been divided and roiled by scandal as Brazil tries an explosive case in which top military officers are accused of helping former President Jair Bolsonaro attempt a coup to remain in power after losing an election.
Analysts said that the two men's appearance in a civilian court marked a historic departure from the impunity senior military officers have enjoyed since the country underwent two decades of military rule.
'Putting a colonel up against a general levels the playing the field and signals that for the justice system, all defendants are equal,' said Lucas Figueiredo, the author of several books about Brazil's dictatorship. "The truth will prevail.'
Accusations of a coup
Cid, a former aide-de-camp to Bolsonaro who signed a plea bargain to cooperate with authorities, has already testified that Braga Netto took part in a meeting in November 2022 during which military officials discussed plans to stop current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva from taking office.
Braga Netto is a close ally of Bolsonaro who also served as the former president's chief-of-staff and his 2022 running mate.
The officers are standing trial alongside Bolsonaro, several other officers, and a few civilians. They face five charges including attempting to stage a coup, involvement in an armed criminal organization, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, aggravated damage and degredation of listed heritage.
A verdict is expected by the end of 2025.
Cid says that in the days after Bolsonaro lost to Lula, he was called to Braga Netto's office and handed a bag of cash to distribute to Bolsonaro supporters camped outside the military headquarters. Braga Netto denies the account and calls Cid a traitor.
The two men were summoned to the Supreme Court on Tuesday for a confrontation, a step in Brazilian legal procedure in which the judge and both parties can interrogate witnesses about discrepancies in their testimony.
The examination was conducted behind closed doors by order of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is chair the coup probe and did not provide more details about the decision. Brazilian law allows closed court hearings when matters of national security or deeply personal matters are involved.
Braga Netto arrived at the court in the country's capital of Brasilia from his jail cell in Rio de Janeiro, where he has been detained for obstructing investigations since December.
A staffer of the Supreme Court who observed the testimony told The Associated Press that both Braga Netto and Cid mostly stuck to their contradictory versions of events and avoided even looking at each other despite sitting opposite one another.
The staffer spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to brief the media.
In a heated exchange, the former defense minister shot back that Cid was a 'liar,' said Braga Netto's lawyer, José Luis Oliveira.
Moraes' decision to call both men for questioning at the same time signaled the judge's lack of confidence in their testimonies, legal experts and officials said.
Brazil's military has long enjoyed impunity
The fact that the two men appeared in a civilian court at all was a break from decades of impunity enjoyed by Brazilian senior officers.
No one in Brazil has been sent to jail on charges related to the 1964-1985 military dictatorship, unlike in neighboring countries Argentina and Chile. And Bolsonaro, despite facing a tangle of serious legal charges, remains the face of the country's opposition to President Lula.
The last Brazilian general to be jailed was Argemiro de Assis Brasil, who was arrested in 1964 for opposing the coup d'etat in which the military seized power.
Since the beginning of the proceedings, members of the military establishment have claimed the Supreme Court trial is an embarrassment to the armed forces.
'Such questioning doesn't help the armed forces,' said Gen. Roberto Peternelli, a former congressman affiliated with Bolsonaro's Liberal Party. 'In my perspective, it ends up harming the country.'
The accused sought to avoid civilian court by seeking a trial at the country's Superior Military Tribunal, where legal experts say they were more likely to find sympathy.
The military court, which handles only a few dozen cases a year, refused the cases.
'Members of the military court understood that, though perpetrated by military personnel, these are not military crimes,' said Alexandre Knopfholz, a law professor at UniCuritiba.
Millions of Brazilians have seen the case play out on TV over the past two years, from raids in which federal police arrest suspects and seize documents to court testimony.
Still, some experts doubt that Cid and Braga Netto would end up serving out full sentences behind bars, even if they are found guilty.
'This is the middle of the probe. We should not forget that every coup-mongering military man in Brazilian history was pardoned,' said Fabio Victor, author of a book about the links between the military and politics after Brazil's transition to democracy in 1985.
Hughes reported from Rio de Janeiro.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
15 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: 10 years after Obergefell, is a backlash brewing?
Marriage equality was a major political issue in the United States for a generation, but today it's no big deal. The vast majority of Americans now believe same-sex couples should have the right to get married. But there are some new signs of a brewing backlash this year, and a very different Supreme Court could, at least in theory, take away what it gave same-sex partners 10 years ago. Ten years ago this week, in 2015, the US Supreme Court gave same-sex couples access to marriage nationwide, which was controversial at the time but today seems obvious to a large portion of the country. Seventeen years ago, in 2008, California voters voted to ban same-sex marriage in their state. Twenty-one years ago, in 2004, President George W. Bush's reelection campaign won in part — maybe in large part — because Ohio was among 11 states that year where voters also approved state constitutional bans to outlaw same-sex marriage, potentially driving turnout. That year, in CNN's presidential exit polls, just one-quarter of Americans thought same-sex couples should be able to legally marry. A larger portion approved of civil unions. Twenty-nine years ago, in 1996, a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. But today, a decade after the Supreme Court's landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, close to 70% of Americans approve of same-sex marriage, according to some polls. The country has done a 180. 'It's been transformative for so many people to be able to have a family that is recognized as a family under law,' said Mary Bonauto, who argued in favor of marriage equality before the Supreme Court and is senior director of civil rights and legal strategies at GLAD Law in Boston. The decision changed lives for millions of Americans, Bonauto said: They can file taxes together, get health insurance together and plan for families together. In that regard, it strengthened marriage in the US. Opposition to marriage equality has never been a part of President Donald Trump's populist political message, and it has gone largely unremarked that his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is a married gay man. Bessent is the first openly gay married man to be appointed by the Senate in a Republican administration. But while Trump has no issue with same-sex marriage, there is a brewing backlash among religious conservatives. ► Southern Baptists, at their annual meeting this month, called for the passage of laws challenging the decision. ► Symbolic resolutions calling on the court to revisit Obergefell have been introduced in at least nine state legislatures. ► Efforts to create a new legal class of marriage — covenant marriage, based on conservative religious teachings — that would be between a man and a woman and make divorce more difficult, have sputtered, so far, in Missouri and Tennessee this year. For context, House Speaker Mike Johnson entered into a covenant marriage in Louisiana. ► Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who drew nationwide attention when she defied court orders and refused to issue marriage licenses in 2015 after the Obergefell decision, is still fighting to have the Supreme Court revisit the decision. There are Supreme Court justices who came to the bench decades ago, when opposition to gay marriage was a major political issue, who now — with a much more conservative court — would like to revisit the decision and take away nationwide marriage equality. When the court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas called on justices to also revisit Obergefell. In answer, Democrats, who then controlled the House and Senate, worked with Republicans to pass a law, the Respect for Marriage Act, that voided the Defense of Marriage Act and would require states to honor marriage certificates in the unlikely event that the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell. Justice Samuel Alito, another vocal critic of the decision, has also endorsed taking another look. If Thomas and Alito were to get their wish, it's possible things could turn out differently. The ideological balance on the court has been upended in the past 10 years. Two justices who supported the majority in the Obergefell decision — Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg — have been replaced by more conservative justices. But conservative does not necessarily guarantee a vote against gay rights. It was Justice Neil Gorsuch, who replaced Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote a more recent landmark decision that extended federal civil rights protections to LGBTQ people. He has sided with Thomas and Alito in other decisions related to the LGBTQ community. Bonauto said she's optimistic the decision will hold, but 'that optimism also rests on continued vigilance since there are those who seek to undo it.' In opposing the Obergefell majority, Chief Justice John Roberts predicted that the court's action could actually mobilize opposition to same-sex marriage. Better to let states vote in favor of it in time, he argued. 'Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.' He was wrong, according to public opinion surveys. Marriage equality is now the norm — although Gallup polling has shown Republican support declining over the past three years, from a peak of 55% in 2022 to just 41% this May. Kristen Soltis Anderson, a Republican pollster and CNN contributor, wrote for the New York Times about polling she conducted with a coalition of GOP pollsters for the organization Centerline Liberties. 'Republicans remain very open to the idea that the government should not be in the business of meddling with or punishing people because they are gay or lesbian,' she concluded. But that openness does not extend to the entire LGBTQ community, Anderson wrote, which was clear from how much Republican candidates, including Trump, focused on trans issues during the 2024 election. 'Republican voters seem to have made a distinction between the 'L.G.B.' and the 'T,' she wrote, noting opposition to things like gender-affirming care and trans women in sports. I asked Bonauto if she sees any corollary between the very long fight for marriage equality and other LGB rights and the current fight for trans rights. 'What I see is that it was easy when people didn't know gay and lesbian Americans, bisexual Americans, to treat them as dangerous outsiders,' Bonauto told me. 'And I feel like that's what's happening with transgender people now, where so few people know a transgender person or have a transgender person in their family. It is, in fact, a small minority of people.' Aggressive legal actions by states regarding trans rights today do somewhat mirror efforts to limit marriage rights years ago. But Bonauto said she's an optimist. 'When you get to know people, it can be the beginning of a process of just sort of awakening to this idea of, okay, that's just another person.' Americans, she said, tend to help one another once they get to know each other.
San Francisco Chronicle
16 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump again questions NATO's collective defense guarantee ahead of summit
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday once again raised questions about America's commitment to defend its allies should they come under attack as he prepared to join a NATO summit in the Netherlands. Just as he did during his first term in office, Trump suggested that his backing would depend on whether U.S. allies are spending enough on defense. He's demanded that European allies and Canada dedicate 5% of GDP to their security. On the eve of the meeting in The Hague, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that his commitment to Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty – the organization's collective security guarantee – 'depends on your definition.' 'There's numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right?' Trump said. 'But I'm committed to being their friends.' He signaled that he would give a more precise definition of what Article 5 means to him once he is at the summit. As a candidate in 2016, Trump suggested that he as president would not necessarily heed the alliance's mutual defense guarantee. In March this year, he expressed uncertainty that NATO would come to the United States' defense if needed. What Article 5 says Article 5 is the foundation stone on which the 32-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization is built. It states that an armed attack against one or more of the members shall be considered an attack against all members. It also states that if such an armed attack occurs, each member would take, individually and in concert with others, 'such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.'' That security guarantee is the reason previously neutral Finland and Sweden sought to join NATO after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and why Ukraine itself and other countries in Europe also want in. When it has been invoked Article 5 was only invoked once, in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, paving the way for NATO's biggest ever operation in Afghanistan. But NATO allies have also taken collective defense measures, including joining the U.S. to fight the Islamic State group in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as help keep the peace in the Balkans. The Three Musketeers-like pledge of all for one, one for all, is at the heart of NATO's deterrent effect. To question it too loudly might invite an adversary to test it. European officials have said that Russia is planning to do just that. The impact of Article 5 on Ukraine NATO's credibility hinges on Article 5 and its commitment to offer membership to any European country that can contribute to security in Europe and North America. But Ukraine, currently in the middle of war with Russia, might oblige all 32 member countries to spring to its defense militarily, potentially igniting a wider war with a nuclear-armed country. Trump is vetoing its membership for the foreseeable future. Article 5 becomes problematic when the territory of a member is unclear. For instance, Russian forces entered Georgia in August 2008, a few months after NATO leaders first promised the country it would join, along with Ukraine.
San Francisco Chronicle
17 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Germany soccer federation fined for tax evasion related to pre-2006 World Cup payment to FIFA
BERLIN (AP) — The German soccer federation has been convicted of tax evasion related to the awarding of the World Cup hosted by the country in 2006. A regional court in Frankfurt fined the federation, known by its German acronym DFB, 110,000 euros ($128,000) at the culmination of the nearly 16-month trial on Wednesday. Prosecutors had been pushing for a larger fine after accusing the DFB of failing to pay approximately 2.7 million euros (now $3.1 million) in taxes related to its payment of 6.7 million euros ($7.8 million) to FIFA, world soccer's governing body, in April 2005. That payment settled a loan that Germany great Franz Beckenbauer, the head of the World Cup organizing committee, had accepted three years earlier from Robert Louis-Dreyfus, a former Adidas executive and then part-owner of the Infront marketing agency. The money was channeled through a Swiss law firm to a Qatari company belonging to Mohammed Bin Hammam, then a member of FIFA's Executive Committee. The exact purpose of the money remained unclear. The DFB concealed the repayment of the loan as a contribution toward a planned World Cup opening gala, which was later canceled, and falsely declared it a business expense a year later. Former DFB officials Theo Zwanziger, Wolfgang Niersbach, and Horst R. Schmidt were originally charged in the trial. The proceedings against all three, who consistently denied the allegations of tax evasion, were eventually dropped upon payment of fines. ___
