If a police officer witnesses a crime, he needs not contact parliament to have a vote on whether or not to arrest the person. He need not worry about whether or not the criminal in question is a friend of the prime minister's or not. Everything is automated. Laws are passed which clearly define the protocol the officer is to follow upon seeing a crime in progress. If the circumstances, according to law, are met, then he reacts accordingly, automatically, without the government even bering aware it's happening. Such as system also proves to be not only efficient, but also just since this puts the government itself under the laws of these protocols, thus not allowing anyone to claim so often that arrests are too suspiciously selective.
With the military, it's a whole different ballgame! It is not automatized at all, with each decision having to come from the Canadian government, one exception being in the event of immediate military threat from a proceeding attack againsta Canadian soil or the body politic.
But as far as international intervention is concerned, it's all dependant upon the government's whims and fancies on a case by case basis, depending on the prejudices and relationships and interests of the government in quesiton. A good example is the US. Many ask why does the US military attack naiton X, but not naiton Z, based on the reasons given for attacking nation X when Z falls under the same category. This merely makes the military appear like a biassed tool of partisan politics rather than an forece which is designed to do its job professionally, apolitically and without partisan bias.
Thus I shall make a recommendation for my second post in this thread.
With the military, it's a whole different ballgame! It is not automatized at all, with each decision having to come from the Canadian government, one exception being in the event of immediate military threat from a proceeding attack againsta Canadian soil or the body politic.
But as far as international intervention is concerned, it's all dependant upon the government's whims and fancies on a case by case basis, depending on the prejudices and relationships and interests of the government in quesiton. A good example is the US. Many ask why does the US military attack naiton X, but not naiton Z, based on the reasons given for attacking nation X when Z falls under the same category. This merely makes the military appear like a biassed tool of partisan politics rather than an forece which is designed to do its job professionally, apolitically and without partisan bias.
Thus I shall make a recommendation for my second post in this thread.