NATO Gen. Philip Breedlove Echoes Justin Trudeau On 'Root Causes' Of Radicalism

Posted on by

The top commander of NATO and Justin Trudeau have something in common: They've both believe that the "root causes" of radicalism need to be understood.

"This is a long-term, not a short-term, fight," NATO's Gen. Philip Breedlove told CBC's "The House" of the U.S.-led fight against the Islamic State.

"Until we have addressed the root causes of these kinds of issues, we can expect to have to deal with these kind of issues."

To address the causes, Breedlove said, the West must help bring health, security and jobs to vulnerable areas.

Breedlove's interview echoes comments made by Justin Trudeau in April 2013, shortly after the Boston Marathon bombings. He also drew attention to the "root causes," and his comments immediately became attack ad ammunition for the Harper government.

Trudeau, in an interview with the CBC's Peter Mansbridge, said that it is important to fully understand what drives people to terrorism.

"We have to look at the root causes," Trudeau said. "Now, we don't know now if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue. But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded."

The Conservatives jumped on the Liberal leader's remarks, blasting him in an attack ad that asked "How can you make excuses for terrorists and keep Canadians safe? Justin Trudeau. He's in way over his head."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper also criticized Trudeau's comments.

"When you see this type of violent act, you do not sit around trying to rationalize it or make excuses for it or figure out its root causes," he said.

Continue reading here:

NATO Gen. Philip Breedlove Echoes Justin Trudeau On 'Root Causes' Of Radicalism

Union has multiple legal concerns regarding new conduct policy

Posted on by

AP

The NFL Players Association intended to scrutinize immediately the new personal conduct policy for terms that permit potential legal challenges, either through arbitration or a claim with the National Labor Relations Board.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the NFLPA has identified multiple specific areas of concern and communicated those concerns to the Executive Committee and board of player representatives. The three biggest issues are summarized below.

First, the union disputes the leagues belief that Fifth Amendment rights have no relevance to the new policy. We disagree and will vigorously protect ALL players 5th Amendment rights; we will ensure that an NFLPA attorney and criminal attorney protect a player at every step of any NFL investigation, NFLPA management informed the Executive Committee and player representatives in a memo, a copy of which PFT has obtained. This is crucial for players protection because any information gathered in an employers investigation is not privileged, and law enforcement could obtain and make prosecutorial decisions based on such information. The NFLPA also will aggressively address the possibility that a player who invokes his Fifth Amendment right will be disciplined for failing to cooperate with the leagues investigation.

Second, the NFLPA disagrees with the plan to put players on paid leave when charged with a crime of violence. [W]e strongly object to such unilateral action by the Commissioner/Owners, in no small part because many players have contracts that include significant roster bonuses, etc., the NFLPA said. Moreover, the removal of a player from the field is a form of discipline regardless of whether he is paid his paragraph 5 salary. We do not believe that unilaterally placing players on the Commissioner Exempt list with pay before issuance of discipline in form of fine or suspension is permitted by the CBA or NFL Constitution.

Third, the NFLPA contends that the new approach to discipline under the Personal Conduct Policy, with the Commissioner delegating the initial decision to a to-be-hired Special Counsel for Investigations and Conduct, violates the plain language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

This new disciplinary structure violates the CBA, the NFLPA explained to the players. Article 46 of the CBA, which was obviously collectively bargained, contains the specific agreement that the Commissioner issues the initial discipline, and the parties agreed that he can delegate appeal decision rights; the CBA language allowing for delegation is specific and its absence for the Commissioner to delegate to another NFL paid position is clear.

The NFLPA may challenge these and other provisions by pursuing a system arbitration under the labor deal or filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board.

Original post:

Union has multiple legal concerns regarding new conduct policy

Police Harassment First Amendment Test Aliso Viejo Orange County Sheriff – Video

Posted on by


Police Harassment First Amendment Test Aliso Viejo Orange County Sheriff
12-10-2014 Decided to go out and take some video, was questioned and followed by the Orange County Sheriffs Department in Aliso Viejo Ca. I tried to stay pol...

By: TheJunkyard News

Go here to see the original:

Police Harassment First Amendment Test Aliso Viejo Orange County Sheriff - Video

Justice Brennans Fight to Preserve the Legacy of New York Times v. Sullivan – Video

Posted on by


Justice Brennans Fight to Preserve the Legacy of New York Times v. Sullivan
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the case that changed the First Amendment, has protected the freedom of expression for the past 50 years. Join First Amendment lawyer Lee Levine and veteran...

By: NCC Video

See the article here:

Justice Brennans Fight to Preserve the Legacy of New York Times v. Sullivan - Video