David Hobby wrote: > >> They are. One of the justifications for the brazilian coup >> d'etat in 1964 was that the then President had been the >> Vice President for two periods, and since reelection of >> the President was not allowed, he didn't have a legitimate >> claim to Presidency. Also, when he fled the armed forces, >> the Senate declared that the Presidency was vacant, because >> he was not there (!). > > You say "when he fled the armed forces"? Armed > forces are not particularly subtle. > Yes, but there was no _battle_. The armed forces could be just parading. There was no killing during the coup d'etat of 1964 [as there was no killing in the coup d'etat of 1889 that deposed the Monarchy - just one man was shot, but he was saved in time by a young caded and survived]
Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
