Page 254 - El État de los derechos humanos en las relaciones familiares
P. 254

ÉTAT DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS EN LAS RELACIONES FAMILIARES












                  As a result of so many tragic events in which the armed forces have been involved, with all
                  reason an issue arises insistently from the Secretary of Defense. It is right: they do not have

                  the legal basis for their performance in public security tasks.


                  Legislation  without  resolving  before  the  conceptual  ambiguity  in  which  the  armed  forces

                  operate can be nationally dangerous, as it is not known with certainty what type of troops the
                  country demands or what the scope of its mission in the area of internal security would be.

                  The risk is to make his current status of substitute police more rigid and irrevocable. There

                  would be no step back; the police function as civil liability would have been extinguished.

                  The governors would applaud. Making laws without knowing where they lead us in the end
                  would be a dangerous step. Ambiguity about the armed forces must be eradicated. In the past

                  that indeterminacy has been comfortable for presidents. They have used them in everything

                  that the civil power is impotent or insufficient: civil protection activities, persecute guerrillas,

                  repress social violence, confront the narco and now submit to the general criminality that
                  drowns us. The costs to them have been enormous and will continue to grow.


                  [...] It is important to clarify in the law what the country needs its armed forces for. It must be

                  specified  in  the  Constitution,  an  essential  document  where  they  appear  indeterminantly.

                  They are only mentioned; they lack constitutional personality. It is said in it who appoints its
                  commanders, who has it for internal security (Article 89); at one extreme, what they can not

                  do (Article 129); what jurisdiction governs in their barracks (article 132); who declares war or

                  who raises them (article 73). For more, there are three armed forces and the Constitution
                  does not recognize it. To order them to act, a jurisprudence of the Supreme Court is used as

                  a crutch.















                                                           256
   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259