I miss Bill

[Ned]

Well, for what it is worth, SM, I have never heard anyone heretofore call Ike a racist. But you should know that he publicly humiliated Patton, our most successful general, after the so-called slapping incident. Part of the reason Ike did this was that Patton is alleged to have stated, on emerging from the medical tent, "There is no such thing as 'battle fatigue'. That's an invention of the Jews."

This got around to the Patton's entire command. The derogatory reference to the Jews was reportedly causing significant problems. The troops wondered what we were fighting for if their own commander sounded just like Hitler.

I would also like to point out that Eisenhower insisted that all his commanders personally visit the death camps at the close of the war. He was the one who insisted the German townsfolk visit the camps. He was the one who put the Holocaust front and center in the new German educational system.

As I said, I have never heard that Eisenhower was a racist. But certainly, even if he held these views, he was much to good of a politician to say something to anyone that could be considered racist. Further, as Imran and I have pointed out, Ike did things that are inconsistent with being a racist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I do, in cases where it's nobody's business

And on what legal rule can you assert 'nobody's business'?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
we don't sue as readily here

and was that the case? was monica sexually harrased? if that's what she said, she's the one who lied...

Didn't have anything to do with Monica, but with a woman named Paula Jones. I'm sure you can find the sordid details here:

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com

[Ned]

Guys, I am not a legal expert on European laws, but they do seem to recognize a right of privacy there that would forbid certain types of inquiries. We have similar rules here where a spouse cannot be forced to testify against his or her spouse.

The disconnect between SM and the United States on Clinton is the Europeans lack of understanding of our litigation system. To them, Clinton had an absolute right to not answer at all, or to evade as best he could, questions into his private sexual life. To us, he had no such right. He had to tell the truth.

Thus, where Americans are offended by Clinton's dishonesty, the Europeans are offended that we would even ask such questions on Bill.

[JohnT]

We're also offended by Europeans. Don't forget that.

[Roland]

"Guys, I am not a legal expert on European laws, but they do seem to recognize a right of privacy there that would forbid certain types of inquiries."

Nope. We just don't drag some ***** out of the woods, prop her up with rightwinger's money, and start a mock trial.

The legal difference is mostly in disclosure rules.

[Dry]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Lieing before a court of law is commonly refered to as perjury. I wasn't aware that Europe considered perjury to be a human right.

Not perjury. In Europe (maybe not all countries), sexual intercourse between free-willing adults is neither a crime nor a delict. Nobody will ever face a jury for a simple BJ between consenting adults.
If, someone had to face it, the accusation act itself being illegal, you have no obligation of telling the truth.
Let's say you are accused of... eating bananas - which is legal, but you know that some of your fellow citizens may be hurt by that. I wouldn't find it 'bad' that you lie about it.

If you remember, some newspaper - owned by a brit, how surprising - tried to involved Pres. Mitterant in some illegal child scandal.
Nobody followed, not even the opposition. Frenchmen are not interrested in their president private life, only in political skill.

In Belgium, we had a vice-premier who is gay. He didn't say it, but didn't hide it either. It was just irrelevant info. The police tried threat him revealing his sexual orientation. He just said he was gay before them, and nobody did care. Popularity of the guy even raised a little for having been a potential 'victim' of the right-wing, good-thinking police.

If one day some european political has to face a trial for some private life reasons, and if he says just "f*** off", his popularity should indeed raise.
Except maybe in UK.

[TheStinger]

even in the UK no one cares unless the politician in question is hypocritical about it

[Saint Marcus]

The disconnect between SM and the United States on Clinton is the Europeans lack of understanding of our litigation system. To them, Clinton had an absolute right to not answer at all, or to evade as best he could, questions into his private sexual life. To us, he had no such right. He had to tell the truth.

Thus, where Americans are offended by Clinton's dishonesty, the Europeans are offended that we would even ask such questions on Bill.

Indeed. Great post Ned. That is exactly the difference between our two legal systems.

And I know which one I prefer.