Inauguration Day

[helene_t]

Fair enough so what does your country do?.

1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

Not sure which country I should call "mine", but if your question should be read as "what should have been done with captured terrorist suspects" I would say: treat them as you treat all other suspects. Give them a normal trial. wtp?

[Gerben42]

Fair enough so what does your country do?.

1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

Not sure which country I should call "mine", but if your question should be read as "what should have been done with captured terrorist suspects" I would say: treat them as you treat all other suspects. Give them a normal trial. wtp?

 

Germany: The RAF terrorists like Klar & Mohnhaupt were tried in a normal trial.

 

Alternatively, one can put people on trial at the international court in The Hague.

[kenberg]

The inaugural speech was good, everyone cheered, now t gets down to choices. Whatever choices are made, some will cheer and some will not.

 

I predict that whatever decision is made regarding the treatment of foreign based terrorists operating in the US, it will not be that we treat them just as if they were ordinary crooks.

 

We of course do put people such as Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City) and Eric Rudolph (abortion clinic bombings) on trial. McVeigh was executed, Rudolph is in prison for life. We have put Americans on trial who were agents of foreign governments, from the Rosenbergs to Robert Hanson. Non-citizens working stealthily on sabotage on behalf of hostile foreign governments have, I think, always been treated differently. By our government, by I think most governments, and I believe by the Geneva agreements. One could say that Al Qaeda is not exactly a foreign government and, while maybe a bit of a hair spitting argument, this is technically true. It is a situation to be dealt with. I hope we take some careful thought as to how we go about this. I seriously doubt that the final decision will be to just treat it as if the person is an ordinary criminal. Often what we do with criminals from other countries is just deport them. Lucky Luciano comes to mind, although there were complicating issues there. We may want to do more than deport in the terrorist cases that will arise in the future, although in some cases threatening deportation to his native land might be a pretty effective interrogation tactic.

[Winstonm]

The problem at Guantanemo in not what to do with the terrorists - it is what to do with all the others there who have been held.

[jdonn]

So today he suspends actions at Gitmo, institutes some pretty amazing lobbying reforms and freezes pay hikes at the White House.

 

Not bad for a 1st day. I'm really starting to like this guy.

I knew he would turn some people. :)

[PassedOut]

The problem at Guantanemo in not what to do with the terrorists - it is what to do with all the others there who have been held.

Yes. Many detainees were sold to Americans for cash on the barrelhead. Much of the goverment secrecy was designed to conceal that fact.

 

Obama's emphasis on transparency is one reason all real Americans feel better today. Most government secrecy aims to conceal incompetence and/or corruption. Clearly that's why secrecy was so important to Bush and his administration.

 

Obama has repeatedly emphasized that he will not be a perfect president and that his administration will make mistakes along the way. To some extent, those statements innoculate him from the side-effects of government transparency.

 

I expect that Obama will face embarrassments during his term, and that he'll need to own up to his own mistakes. Though his popularity will go down as a result, he'll keep the respect of most of us.

[Al_U_Card]

His greatest advantage will be choosing competency over loyalty. Less liklihood of a need for damage control or faulty memory/reporting skills...

[Winstonm]

"The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals," the president said.

 

I guess this means Jack Bauer is out of a job.

[Trinidad]

Fair enough so what does your country do?.

1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

The Netherlands is a small country where only small things happen.

 

In the late 1970's there were a couple of hostage takings by militants from the ethnic minority originating from the South Moluk Islands. I don't know the definition of terrorism, but to me these were obviously terrorist acts (even though I had and have sympathy for the South Moluk point of view since I grew up in a South Moluk neighborhood). The motives were entirely political.

 

I recall that twice a train was hijacked and the passengers taken hostage, once an elementary school was occupied and children and teachers were taken hostage, once the provincial administration building was occupied and there was a hostage taking in the Indonesian consulate. There was also an attempt to kidnap the Queen (but this was prevented).

 

The point for this thread (and the answer to your question):

All trials took place in the regular criminal courts. All sentences were served in regular prisons.

 

Since you asked to be specific, and for those who are interested, here are some details that I found on the Dutch Wikipedia. I left out the names of the people involved since I don't consider it important, but if you really want to know you can find some references at the end:

 

Train 1 (at Wijster): 7 hijackers held a train hostage for 12 days. During this, the train engineer and two passengers were killed. The hijackers surrendered and got prison sentences up to 14 years.

 

Train 2 (at De Punt): 9 hijackers held the train hostage for 20 days. There were a little less than 100 passengers. The hijacking was ended by military force. Six out of nine hijackers lost there lives as well as two passengers. The remaining 3 hijackers were sentenced to 6 to 9 years inprisonment.

 

Elementary school: 4 hostage takers, a 3 week hostage situation, no loss of life. The hostage takers surrendered after an armored car attack. I don't know the sentences.

 

Province administration building: 3 hostage takers held 16 women and 55 men. 1 killed and 1 injured who died a few weeks later from his injuries. The military intervened when the hostage takers were litterally standing ready to execute more hostages (the man who died from his injuries was the first to be executed). Sentences: 15 years inprisonment.

 

Plan to kidnap the queen, but they were caught while preparing for the kidnapping: 39 people involved. Seventeen stood trial and were convicted to different sentences. The longest sentence was 5 years in prison.

 

I hope that this is specific enough. I would say the Dutch prosecuted "in a manner that was consistent with their values and ideals" (to quote some important guy on the West side of the Atlantic).

 

Rik

 

1. Wijster

2. De Punt

3. Elementary school

4. Province administrative building

5. Kidnap attempt Dutch Queen

[Lobowolf]

Fair enough so what does your country do?.

1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

The Netherlands is a small country where only small things happen.

 

In the late 1970's there were a couple of hostage takings by militants from the ethnic minority originating from the South Moluk Islands. I don't know the definition of terrorism, but to me these were obviously terrorist acts (even though I had and have sympathy for the South Moluk point of view since I grew up in a South Moluk neighborhood). The motives were entirely political.

 

I recall that twice a train was hijacked and the passengers taken hostage, once an elementary school was occupied and children and teachers were taken hostage, once the provincial administration building was occupied and there was a hostage taking in the Indonesian consulate. There was also an attempt to kidnap the Queen (but this was prevented).

 

The point for this thread (and the answer to your question):

All trials took place in the regular criminal courts. All sentences were served in regular prisons.

 

Since you asked to be specific, and for those who are interested, here are some details that I found on the Dutch Wikipedia. I left out the names of the people involved since I don't consider it important, but if you really want to know you can find some references at the end:

 

Train 1 (at Wijster): 7 hijackers held a train hostage for 12 days. During this, the train engineer and two passengers were killed. The hijackers surrendered and got prison sentences up to 14 years.

 

Train 2 (at De Punt): 9 hijackers held the train hostage for 20 days. There were a little less than 100 passengers. The hijacking was ended by military force. Six out of nine hijackers lost there lives as well as two passengers. The remaining 3 hijackers were sentenced to 6 to 9 years inprisonment.

 

Elementary school: 4 hostage takers, a 3 week hostage situation, no loss of life. The hostage takers surrendered after an armored car attack. I don't know the sentences.

 

Province administration building: 3 hostage takers held 16 women and 55 men. 1 killed and 1 injured who died a few weeks later from his injuries. The military intervened when the hostage takers were litterally standing ready to execute more hostages (the man who died from his injuries was the first to be executed). Sentences: 15 years inprisonment.

 

Plan to kidnap the queen, but they were caught while preparing for the kidnapping: 39 people involved. Seventeen stood trial and were convicted to different sentences. The longest sentence was 5 years in prison.

 

I hope that this is specific enough. I would say the Dutch prosecuted "in a manner that was consistent with their values and ideals" (to quote some important guy on the West side of the Atlantic).

 

Rik

 

1. Wijster

2. De Punt

3. Elementary school

4. Province administrative building

5. Kidnap attempt Dutch Queen

With respect to actual crimes taking place within a country, it's easy to use the criminal courts; more problematic areas pertain to people who train or associate with terrorist groups, participate in training activities outside the country then return (or come) to the USA in a "sleeper cell" type of situation, plan to participate in terrorist acts (but towards which acts to steps have yet been taking, and thus no criminal conspiracy has yet taken place), etc. You describe incidents of murder, conspiracy, kidnapping, etc. taking place within the geographical confines of your country. Those are the situations in which it's easy enough to use the criminal court system.

 

Secondly, on its face, the Geneva convention (and its protections) do not apply to everyone; additionally, American jurisprudence for more than 50 years (at least since World War 2) has been that there is a distinction between lawful enemy combatants and unlawful ones.

[luke warm]

I have very mixed feelings about Gitmo for years. There is the part of me that feels that we should hold any combatant that whose sole purpose is to inflict harm on my country.

 

Sure, of course these people are dangerous and "planning to do harm to the USA" should be a crime. But this does not in any way justify having a prison camp outside of US borders to get around the Geneva convention. Nothing does.

Fair enough so what does your country do?.

1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

Shame on you, Mike.

 

Neocon tactic.

 

Disgusting.

maybe you're right but i need to know what you mean by this, al... how exactly is this a neocon tactic?

[Lobowolf]

"What you guys over there do is wrong!"

"Oh. Well, what do you guy over THERE do?"

 

 

 

I have to admit, I wouldn't have picked that out on a multiple choice question entitled: Which of the following is a disgusting tactic?

 

I guess this is the only thread in the cooler that's not even supposed to run a spot-check for hypocrisy.

[kenberg]

Fair enough so what does your country do?.

1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

The Netherlands is a small country where only small things happen.

 

In the late 1970's there were a couple of hostage takings by militants from the ethnic minority originating from the South Moluk Islands. I don't know the definition of terrorism, but to me these were obviously terrorist acts (even though I had and have sympathy for the South Moluk point of view since I grew up in a South Moluk neighborhood). The motives were entirely political.

 

I recall that twice a train was hijacked and the passengers taken hostage, once an elementary school was occupied and children and teachers were taken hostage, once the provincial administration building was occupied and there was a hostage taking in the Indonesian consulate. There was also an attempt to kidnap the Queen (but this was prevented).

 

The point for this thread (and the answer to your question):

All trials took place in the regular criminal courts. All sentences were served in regular prisons.

 

Since you asked to be specific, and for those who are interested, here are some details that I found on the Dutch Wikipedia. I left out the names of the people involved since I don't consider it important, but if you really want to know you can find some references at the end:

 

Train 1 (at Wijster): 7 hijackers held a train hostage for 12 days. During this, the train engineer and two passengers were killed. The hijackers surrendered and got prison sentences up to 14 years.

 

Train 2 (at De Punt): 9 hijackers held the train hostage for 20 days. There were a little less than 100 passengers. The hijacking was ended by military force. Six out of nine hijackers lost there lives as well as two passengers. The remaining 3 hijackers were sentenced to 6 to 9 years inprisonment.

 

Elementary school: 4 hostage takers, a 3 week hostage situation, no loss of life. The hostage takers surrendered after an armored car attack. I don't know the sentences.

 

Province administration building: 3 hostage takers held 16 women and 55 men. 1 killed and 1 injured who died a few weeks later from his injuries. The military intervened when the hostage takers were litterally standing ready to execute more hostages (the man who died from his injuries was the first to be executed). Sentences: 15 years inprisonment.

 

Plan to kidnap the queen, but they were caught while preparing for the kidnapping: 39 people involved. Seventeen stood trial and were convicted to different sentences. The longest sentence was 5 years in prison.

 

I hope that this is specific enough. I would say the Dutch prosecuted "in a manner that was consistent with their values and ideals" (to quote some important guy on the West side of the Atlantic).

 

Rik

 

1. Wijster

2. De Punt

3. Elementary school

4. Province administrative building

5. Kidnap attempt Dutch Queen

You can count me in as one of the people who are interested in this. I do have a question. The culprits were from "the ethnic minority originating from the South Moluk Islands". Can you pin it down a little more? Where were they born? Where did they grow up? Of which country did they claim citizenship? You can see where I am going with this. Here, in the US, I am pretty confident that we treat US citizens who commit crimes differently than we treat foreign nationals, even if they commit the same acts. If the Netherlands' legal system treats foreign nationals exactly as it treats Dutch citizens this would surprise me, as it would with any country. But I have been surprised before.

 

Roland suggested above that Americans could learn something from Europeans. I completely agree. I don't think we should decide our course of action by calling up the Netherlands, or the British, or Germany, or whoever,and then just doing exactly that, but learning is good.

[Winstonm]

more problematic areas pertain to people who train or associate with terrorist groups, participate in training activities outside the country then return (or come) to the USA in a "sleeper cell" type of situation, plan to participate in terrorist acts (but towards which acts to steps have yet been taking, and thus no criminal conspiracy has yet taken place), etc.

 

The question that must be answered is whether or not the criminal burden of proof and rules of evidence change when dealing with would-be terrorist tacticians or whether it may be best to treat them as captured enemy and grant the protections provided by the Geneva conventions.

[Lobowolf]

more problematic areas pertain to people who train or associate with terrorist groups, participate in training activities outside the country then return (or come) to the USA in a "sleeper cell" type of situation, plan to participate in terrorist acts (but towards which acts to steps have yet been taking, and thus no criminal conspiracy has yet taken place), etc.

 

The question that must be answered is whether or not the criminal burden of proof and rules of evidence change when dealing with would-be terrorist tacticians or whether it may be best to treat them as captured enemy and grant the protections provided by the Geneva conventions.

There are sort of multiple issues (at least legally; possibly morally/philosophically as well) that get conflated. Before you even have to think about burden of proof and rules of evidence, there's an issue of whether "crimes" (from a pure USA criminal justice perspective) have been committed in American jurisdiction- let alone are provable.

 

Secondly, assuming they haven't committed crimes that would subject them to American criminal jurisprudence but the "enemy combatant" rules apply, there are (long standing) distinctions between legal and illegal enemy combatants, and not all captured enemy combatants (particularly those who are not state actors*, but represent a faction within a foreign political system) fall under the Geneva convention.

 

 

*Edit: For instance, though Afghanistan and Iraq, among other countries, are parties to the Geneva Convention, Al Qaeda is neither a party to the GC or a representative for a country that is. My understanding is that a signing party (USA) is only bound under the GC as applied to a non-signing party if that non-signing party operates in accordance to the GC. If the non-signing party does not operate by the GC, then by the terms of the GC, that party is not entitled to its protections.

[Winstonm]

I think it would be in our best interests to rethink whether or not to follow Geneva for illegal enemy combatants. One of the gross injustices of the Guantanemo detentions was in not allowing a Geneva-like tribunal to determine if there was enough evidence to warrant a suspect being held.

 

This is an area where I am grateful that the President is now a constitutional attorney with a much better personal grasp of law than the previous felllow had.

 

If the non-signing party does not operate by the GC, then by the terms of the GC, that party is not entitled to its protections.

 

In my view, the question is above one of legality and becomes one of what should we do rather than what can we do.

[Lobowolf]

 

"This is an area where I am grateful that the President is now a constitutional attorney with a much better personal grasp of law than the previous felllow had."

 

Strongly agree; these are complex issues that he is extremely well-equipped to deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

"I think it would be in our best interests to rethink whether or not to follow Geneva for illegal enemy combatants. One of the gross injustices of the Guantanemo detentions was in not allowing a Geneva-like tribunal to determine if there was enough evidence to warrant a suspect being held."

 

I suspect it will be re-thought, though I'm not sure it will (or should) be changed. The GC (in my understanding; I know a lot less about international law than domestic law) is not a "mere" general human rights declaration, but a quid-pro-quo - You do this for our guys, we'll do it for your guys. Extending the same courtesy to groups that feel no similar compunction and do not offer the same consideration to our troops isn't a no-brainer.

[mycroft]

You know, I don't think hypocrisy is necessarily wrong here - that doesn't make the other side right, of course. It's just that the "land of the free", "leader of the free world" should do it right, no matter what the less free, "follower" countries do, Isn't that the definition of "leader", in contrast to "tyrant"?

 

"I'm no worse than HIM OVER THERE" is a tactic designed to not have to admit wrong by changing the topic of discussion away from the speaker to a (safer, more advantageous) target of his choice. Fine, as long as one is okay with being no worse than somebody else (it gets better when one needs be no worse than pick-and-choose; no worse than A over topic alpha, no worse than B over topic beta,...), but it doesn't play well with "you should emulate us, and follow where we lead".

 

And it's labelled a neocon tactic because it's a rhetorical trick that is common among the New Model Republicans. I notice the New Model anti-Republicans are playing it more and more, too; I guess because it works, and it's easier than thinking.

 

But I look at the British reaction to The Troubles - there were excesses, to be sure, and the laws became rather pointed, especially where using army battalions as police came into it; but it was handled as "crime", not as "war". Gerben talked about Baader-Meinhof, and could talk about the Neo-()s - again, criminal, not "war, but by non-warriors, so we don't have to follow the rules either". In this century, even in the U.S., I can compare Khadr and Arar to Ivins...

[mycroft]

And, strangely enough, the first time I stated that position (to my knowledge) was in reaction to someone who said (to my best recollection):

 

"[expletive] the Geneva Convention. You know who the last country we fought that followed the Geneva Convention? The [expletive] Nazis. Why should we be bound to rules that they don't follow?"

 

And the answer was, and is, "because you claim to be better than them."

[Winstonm]

 

"This is an area where I am grateful that the President is now a constitutional attorney with a much better personal grasp of law than the previous felllow had."

 

Strongly agree; these are complex issues that he is extremely well-equipped to deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

"I think it would be in our best interests to rethink whether or not to follow Geneva for illegal enemy combatants. One of the gross injustices of the Guantanemo detentions was in not allowing a Geneva-like tribunal to determine if there was enough evidence to warrant a suspect being held."

 

I suspect it will be re-thought, though I'm not sure it will (or should) be changed. The GC (in my understanding; I know a lot less about international law than domestic law) is not a "mere" general human rights declaration, but a quid-pro-quo - You do this for our guys, we'll do it for your guys. Extending the same courtesy to groups that feel no similar compunction and do not offer the same consideration to our troops isn't a no-brainer.

I agree that it is not clear cut. I think Obama has us thinking the right way on this issue, though - that we have to respect our way of life and our humanitarianism and not allow ourselves to adopt tactics simply because we can.

[Al_U_Card]

I have very mixed feelings about Gitmo for years. There is the part of me that feels that we should hold any combatant that whose sole purpose is to inflict harm on my country.

 

Sure, of course these people are dangerous and "planning to do harm to the USA" should be a crime. But this does not in any way justify having a prison camp outside of US borders to get around the Geneva convention. Nothing does.

Fair enough so what does your country do?.

1) Have they captured anyone..if so who?...what did they do with them?...pls be specific.

Shame on you, Mike.

 

Neocon tactic.

 

Disgusting.

maybe you're right but i need to know what you mean by this, al... how exactly is this a neocon tactic?

Deflect (not answer) and then attack. If caught, feign lack of recollection...

[Lobowolf]

That's a bi-partisan tactic. I think that in some cases (as here), it's not entirely inappropriate, either. I'm not a Christian, myself, but I do see a fair amount of wisdom and common sense in the admonition about worrying about the beam in your own eye before the splinter in your neighbor's.

[Trinidad]

You can count me in as one of the people who are interested in this. I do have a question. The culprits were from  "the ethnic minority originating from the South Moluk Islands". Can you pin it down a little more? Where were they born? Where did they grow up? Of which country did they claim citizenship? You can see where I am going with this. Here, in the US, I am pretty confident that we treat US citizens who commit crimes differently than we treat foreign nationals, even if they commit the same acts. If the Netherlands' legal system treats foreign nationals exactly as it treats Dutch citizens this would surprise me, as it would with any country. But I have been surprised before.

 

Roland suggested above that Americans could learn something from Europeans. I completely agree. I don't think we should decide our course of action by calling up the Netherlands, or the British, or Germany, or whoever,and then just doing exactly that,  but learning is good.

Hi Ken,

 

The South Maluku* problem is a remnant of Dutch colonialism, WWII and American interference in international politics. Over the past 30 years, the problem has more or less faded away since the South Maluku people are well integrated in Dutch society. But I will try to describe the history of the situation below:

 

Before WWII, the part of the world that now is Indonesia was a Dutch colony. In WWII, the Japanese occupied this. Indonesia is a large country with a divers background in culture and religion.

 

After WWII, Indonesia fought for independence. I will put it somewhat black and white: On one side of the conflict were Indonesian freedom fighters who were predominantly Muslims (the vast majority in Indonesia). On the other side were the Dutch colonists, joined by the native Christian population. As you can imagine the cultural/religious make up of the population was different for each island in the archipelago.

 

The South Maluku islands were predominantly Christian. (They still are, even though there has been an influx of Muslims leading to recent tensions on these islands.) Therefore, they were on the Dutch side of the conflict. On top of that, the Dutch had promised the South Maluku islands independence when the conflict was over. The Americans put a lot of pressure on the Dutch to give Indonesia independence. An ugly war broke out. Under heavy pressure from the USA, the Dutch government agreed to Indonesian independence with the South Maluku islands as one of the provinces within the state of Indonesia. (Since queen Wilhelmina could not support this decision, she abdicated.)

 

After that, a significant part of the South Malukuns (particularly the Malukan freedom fighters) fled to The Netherlands. There they lived in refugee camps until they could move to new built neighborhoods. These new built neighborhoods had a predominantly Malukan population. They held the Dutch government to their promise of creating an independent South Malukan Republic (Republik Maluku Selatan, RMS), but what could the Dutch do? They could only offer them Dutch citizenship.

 

Out of principle, most of these refugees (and certainly the militant ones) refused Dutch citizenship, which meant that they now had no recognized citizenship at all. They weren't recognized by Indonesia (and they would have refused anyway) and they didn't want to be Dutch. This went on relatively calmly without much attention for the Malukan cause until the second generation of Malukans were young adults. Convinced that their parents were wronged and unhappy with their situation, some of these young adults radicalized. In the Malukan neighborhoods, it was easy to get radicalized and organize. As a (white) kid I lived in one of these neighborhoods and at night, I could hear the rifles that they were using in their practice. In the second half of the 1970's this led to the violence that I described.

 

Summarizing: Their ethnic background was lying in what is now a province of Indonesia. They were fighting for their independent republic (RMS). They were second generation and born in The Netherlands. (Maybe a few of them were born on the Malukan islands but moved when they were very young.) The Malukans did not have any recognized citizenship. They claimed to be citizens of the RMS, a country that is not recognized by the UN. Still today, the RMS has a government in exile. Their current president is Frans Tutuhatunewa. Their prime minister is John Wattilete. The fact that John Wattilete has a South Malukan father and a Dutch mother may be an illustration of how well these people integrated into Dutch society.

 

Rik

 

* I did some searching on Wikipedia and found that the correct English spelling is Maluku, so I will keep using that from here on.

[Trinidad]

If the Netherlands' legal system treats foreign nationals exactly as it treats Dutch citizens this would surprise me, as it would with any country. But I have been surprised before.

Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution:

"Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan."

 

(My) Translation:

"All who are in The Netherlands, will be treated equally in equal cases. Discrimination on the basis of religion, personal convictions, political affiliation, race, gender or on whatever ground, is not permitted."

 

The crucial part is "All who are in The Netherlands". This means anybody on Dutch soil, not anybody with Dutch citizenship. Citizenship is completely irrelevant to how you are tried for crimes committed on Dutch soil. If you steal someone's wallet in Amsterdam, you will get the same trial and punishment as I do if I would steal someone's wallet in Amsterdam.

 

I had the idea that the US Constitution (or one of the other founding documents, forgive me for not knowing the details of US Law) had a similar phrase. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Rik

[helene_t]

Ken and Lobowolf: OK you say that these terrorists suspects must be treated "differently" than ordinary criminals - may I ask, in what way different? Surely neither of you favor torture.

 

I am surprised that you think it can be relevant what citizenship a suspect has, Ken. OK, foreign citizens can be deported, and there may be an option for them to serve part of their jail sentence in their home country, but except for that the trial and punishment are identical. That must be true in the US too.