Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: ]
    #2188526 - 12/18/03 05:39 PM (20 years, 4 months ago)

Holding these prisoners in limbo is a test to see how far the administration can stretch people's rights before the majority of American's complain. As there is little criticism, further tests will be performed on other groups to find what, if any, limits there are.

Those that do not voice their objection NOW, will have no room to gripe when their rights are violated at some future time.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Swami]
    #2188701 - 12/18/03 08:01 PM (20 years, 4 months ago)

My understanding is that POWs remain in detention until the war is over. As we are reminded every day, the war is not over yet.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGranola
bag lady

Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2188941 - 12/18/03 09:46 PM (20 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

enimatpyrt said:
Prisoners captured on US soil are required to be given a trial and the rights of habeus corpus (most likely misspelled). Prisoners captured in another country and kept on foreign soil have no such rights. Our constitutional rights protect those on American soil.





the constitution is there to protect the rights of US citizens, not foreign nationals captured on US soil but we dont have that right any more.

Quote:


Bottom line, I couldn't care less about them. If they were members of al-q, they should be sentanced under the RICO or conspiracy laws (since you seem adamant about extending American law and Constitutional protection to people who aren't within the borders thereof). If they are members of the taliban, they should be tried for human rights violations, by members of an international war tribune, aka, the World Court.

Show me where a law exists that constitutional rights must be given to combatants that are not on American soil.




there are none, US citizens have been charged as enemy combatants until just recently. the real problem is that as a POW they are soldier and should be treated as military/militia POWs, they do not get an attorney, no trial nothing. Giving them civil liberties makes them political prisoners and not POWs. they do deserve the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention if they are a GC pact country, if not they dont deserve anything more than what US soldiers recieved in Viet Nam.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGranola
bag lady

Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Phred]
    #2188956 - 12/18/03 09:52 PM (20 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
My understanding is that POWs remain in detention until the war is over. As we are reminded every day, the war is not over yet.

pinky




What war, are we still fighting Afganistan, I keep hearing WOMD and Sadam Hussein, what happened to the media coverage of the Afganistan vs. USA

does it strike anyone as strange that Saddam has violated less than 20 UN resolutions regarding WOMDs and the US has violated more than 400, we have nukes, and a chem/bio warfare library that we allow these foriegn powers the access to?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
    #2189140 - 12/18/03 11:15 PM (20 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Edame said:
It wasn't just the first page of a search, it was the [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q="During+an+armed+conflict%2C+only+%93combatants%94+are+permitted"]only[/url] result.

Anyways, I still don't see how you've done anything other than re-assert what you've already said.

And I don't think there is a question as to their status. They didn't have a uniform or identifiable insignia so article 5 is not relevant.

How does this apply to people like Moazzam Begg who were not even on a battlefield (he was effectively kidnapped)? Does this mean that the entire world is now a perpetual battlefield, and that any one of us in civilian clothing can now be held without due process?

I'm also wondering whether you actually read article 5 at all. The point I am trying to make is that it makes it clear that if there is any doubt as to the status of a person being held, they are still entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. As I've already said, these people are being held without charge, where is the evidence of these tribunals that declare them exempt from the Geneva Convention?





So there is one guy that there is doubt about. All the others that were on the battlefield and without uniform or insignia are illegal combatants. You can't take one instance out of thousands and use that to argue your point in regards to the thousands. You r point is valid in the case of the one.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Swami]
    #2189334 - 12/19/03 01:20 AM (20 years, 4 months ago)

Swami: Holding these prisoners in limbo is a test to see how far the administration can stretch people's rights before the majority of American's complain. As there is little criticism, further tests will be performed on other groups to find what, if any, limits there are.

The Orwell inside me fears this to be the case.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Sclorch]
    #2189340 - 12/19/03 01:27 AM (20 years, 4 months ago)

Or maybe they just don't have any legal standing besides those few that are american citizens caught on american soil. If there was any leagal question why wouldn't some left leaning group take the government to trial over it. There are groups with the resources and the desire to damage the administration in any way they can. If they could they would don't you think? Plenty of lawyers who would take this cause if they had a leg to stand on.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #2189350 - 12/19/03 01:34 AM (20 years, 4 months ago)

Um... ACLU

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Sclorch]
    #2189366 - 12/19/03 01:53 AM (20 years, 4 months ago)

zacly. ACLU has only concerned themselves with american citizens and immigrants. And I fully applaud them on that. American Citizens and immigrants should not be held under tha same status as the illegal combatants. ACLU seems to understand that the rest of the detainees are without legal standing.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #2190314 - 12/19/03 12:11 PM (20 years, 4 months ago)

So there is one guy that there is doubt about. All the others that were on the battlefield and without uniform or insignia are illegal combatants. You can't take one instance out of thousands and use that to argue your point in regards to the thousands. You r point is valid in the case of the one.

I don't really know what else to say, I don't know whether you're being deliberately obtuse or you just don't understand. I didn't say that my example of Moazzam Begg was the only person held in suspect circumstances, it was one I remembered off the top of my head (and which you avoided actually commenting on). It makes no difference if the US are treating one person or a thousand people inhumanely, if they are doing it to one then as far as I'm concerned the whole operation is suspect.

You've still failed to mention anything of substance in response to article 5 of the Geneva convention either. Where is the proof that the other prisoners were captured on the battlefield without uniform or insignia? Where is their tribunal to determine these things?

Or maybe they just don't have any legal standing besides those few that are american citizens caught on american soil. If there was any leagal question why wouldn't some left leaning group take the government to trial over it. There are groups with the resources and the desire to damage the administration in any way they can. If they could they would don't you think? Plenty of lawyers who would take this cause if they had a leg to stand on.

Didn't you know? Most of the prisoners are not allowed access to lawyers, and if they are, they are ones appointed/vetted by the military.

Anyway, according to the BBC today, it looks like these people are entitled to rights afforded to US citizens:

Quote:

US court grants Guantanamo rights
Detainees being held by the US military at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba should have access to lawyers and the US court system, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The court said their detention was contrary to US ideals.

It did not accept that the US Government had "unchecked authority".

The ruling relates to the case of a Libyan national captured in Afghanistan and currently being held at Guantanamo.

About 660 people are currently being held as "enemy combatants" at the base.

"Even in times of national emergency... it is the obligation of the judicial branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the executive branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," said the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It added it could not accept the position that anyone under the jurisdiction and control of the US could be held without "recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement".

The decision comes shortly after another US federal appeals court ruled that US authorities did not have the power to detain an American citizen seized on US soil as an "enemy combatant".

That ruling, by the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals, related to the case of so-called "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla.




enimatpyrt said:
Prisoners captured on US soil are required to be given a trial and the rights of habeus corpus (most likely misspelled). Prisoners captured in another country and kept on foreign soil have no such rights. Our constitutional rights protect those on American soil.

Bottom line, I couldn't care less about them. If they were members of al-q, they should be sentanced under the RICO or conspiracy laws (since you seem adamant about extending American law and Constitutional protection to people who aren't within the borders thereof). If they are members of the taliban, they should be tried for human rights violations, by members of an international war tribune, aka, the World Court.

Show me where a law exists that constitutional rights must be given to combatants that are not on American soil.


Show me where I said anything about the constitution before the BBC article above. I'm talking about basic human rights, and the Geneva Convention. For all your assertions that these people are already guilty, they haven't been charged with a single crime.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineenimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
    #2190370 - 12/19/03 12:30 PM (20 years, 4 months ago)

Prisoners of war are kept until the end of said war, or until trading of POW's commenses. Some of the detainees have been released. I am sure that their standard of living in Cuba is much higher than it was in some shitty cave in Afghanistan.

If you don't want to have your "human rights" taken away, don't join a fucking terrorist organization that pisses off the most powerful nation on earth. I'm not gonna shed a tear for them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2190605 - 12/19/03 01:36 PM (20 years, 4 months ago)

So where's the proof that they are terrorists?


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
    #2190671 - 12/19/03 01:50 PM (20 years, 4 months ago)

Edame: So where's the proof that they are terrorists?

If they're locked up at Guantanamo, they're obviously terrorists. Duh!

hehehe


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
    #2192194 - 12/20/03 01:15 AM (20 years, 4 months ago)

I didn't say that my example of Moazzam Begg was the only person held in suspect circumstances, it was one I remembered off the top of my head (and which you avoided actually commenting on).
Moazzam Begg's and other EU citizens have a different set of circumstances than the majority of the detainees. Are you being obtuse in not seeing the difference between them and the majority of the detainees? Obviously their are questions in his case that would make article 5 applicable. But can you explain why his name was on a money transfer found in the possession of Al-Quiada? As for the rest of the detainees I think inhumane is too strong a word to describe how the rest of them are being treated. I doubt they had it so good before.

You've still failed to mention anything of substance in response to article 5 of the Geneva convention either. Where is the proof that the other prisoners were captured on the battlefield without uniform or insignia? Where is their tribunal to determine these things?
Where is the proof that they weren't? How can one prove that they were? Should soldiers all carry video cameras? Article 5 refers to cases where there is a question. In the case of Mr. Biggs and a few others I think there is a question and it should apply to them. I don't see why you say there is a question about all of the detainees. And who decides if there is a question? Obviously you think there is a question but people believe all kinds of things, but that doesn't make those things true. The tribunal comes in after there is a question. If the rest of the world also thinks that there is a question then they should be bringing resolutions to the table at the UN to demand they be brought before a tribunal. I don't know if there have been any attempts to do this. Obviously the US would veto any such resolution but the exposure is the important thing here. I don't think any one nation should be able to veto anything BTW.

Didn't you know? Most of the prisoners are not allowed access to lawyers, and if they are, they are ones appointed/vetted by the military.
A lawyer can file suit on their behalf. Plenty of them would (and now obviously a couple did) if for no other reason then to make a name for themselves. This goes to show that even if they are denied access they can still get representation if their case is arguablely good enough.

I don't think the courts ruling means a whole lot right now. It was really just a way to keep the question open and move the case to the Supreme Court. The SC has already expressed that they would hear the case.

Understand me here. It isn't that I think that they all should be held indefinitely. I tend to agree with the recent court ruling in that to hold them without charging them indefinitely goes against the ideals of America. I think that the ideals of the Constitution should be applied to all people no matter where they come from. The constitutional ideals are for all people. My point is that as far as the law is concerned I'm not sure there was any wrong done . Except of course in the case of those few you bring up.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #2192482 - 12/20/03 06:32 AM (20 years, 4 months ago)

Moazzam Begg's and other EU citizens have a different set of circumstances than the majority of the detainees. Are you being obtuse in not seeing the difference between them and the majority of the detainees?

And yet they are being held in the same circumstances and the same conditions. If there is such an obvious difference, then why is the US ignoring it and continuing to deny them the most basic of human rights?

Obviously their are questions in his case that would make article 5 applicable.

Article 5 applies to all of the detainees, and yet as far as I'm aware, it is still ignored for all of the detainees.

But can you explain why his name was on a money transfer found in the possession of Al-Quiada?

I can't explain that any more than I can explain why George Galloway's (a British MP) name was on seized Iraqi documents. These were later found to be forgeries, as were the Niger Yellowcake documents that Bush was so quick to announce as 'proof'. That alone is hardly enough to declare guilt of anything.

As for the rest of the detainees I think inhumane is too strong a word to describe how the rest of them are being treated. I doubt they had it so good before.

I don't think that this changs the fact that they are not free, and are being held against their will whilst being denied access to their families or lawyers. If the US has evidence that they have committed crimes, then by all means charge them and put them on trial. The fact that they haven't been charged with anything, their denial of lawyers, and the planned military 'courts' with the odds deliberately stacked against them all point to what I'd call inhumane treatment. I suspect that the US's 'evidence' aginst these detainees is so flimsy that they would be laughed out of a normal court.

Where is the proof that they weren't?

The onus is on the US, as the captors and the ones accusing them of wrongdoing, to prove their guilt, not the other way around.

How can one prove that they were?

My guess would be sworn statements from soldiers and commanders at the very least. Like I said, the burden of proof lies with the US, if they can't prove that the detainees did anything wrong, why should they continue to imprison them?

Should soldiers all carry video cameras? Article 5 refers to cases where there is a question. In the case of Mr. Biggs and a few others I think there is a question and it should apply to them. I don't see why you say there is a question about all of the detainees. And who decides if there is a question? Obviously you think there is a question but people believe all kinds of things, but that doesn't make those things true. The tribunal comes in after there is a question. If the rest of the world also thinks that there is a question then they should be bringing resolutions to the table at the UN to demand they be brought before a tribunal. I don't know if there have been any attempts to do this. Obviously the US would veto any such resolution but the exposure is the important thing here. I don't think any one nation should be able to veto anything BTW.

I think that there is a question, and many people have been asking this, but as we found out with Iraq, the Bush administration doesn't listen. Just a few people I've found to have spoken out:

John McCain: "I think the conditions are adequate, in some cases more than adequate. But my concern is the disposition of the prisoners," he said.
...
"These cases have to be disposed of one way or another. After keeping someone two years, a decision should be made."


Lord Steyn (UK judge): "The procedural rules do not prohibit the use of force to coerce the prisoners to confess," he said.

Lord Steyn quoted officials as saying: "It's not quite torture but at close as you can get."

He said the quality of justice did not comply with international standards for fair trials.

"It may be appropriate to pose a question - ought our government to make plain publicly and unambiguously our condemnation of the utter lawlessness at Guantanamo Bay?"


Possibly even the Military lawyers themselves: The Guardian quotes a source close to the military legal establishment as saying that a team of lawyers assigned to the detainees has been dismissed after complaining about the way the planned military tribunals have been designed.

The rules include allowing government representatives to monitor conversations between the lawyers and their clients.

A group of lawyers told Vanity Fair magazine that such rules made a fair trial for the detainees impossible. They are planning a lawsuit against the government, arguing that they were given unlawful orders, the magazine reports.
...
And in October, a former US appeals court judge, John Gibbons, told BBC News Online that justice was being "totally denied" to the detainees in Guantanamo.

"They don't have access to lawyers; they have had no hearings; they are just in limbo. That's as clear an example of justice denied as you can find," he said.


Understand me here. It isn't that I think that they all should be held indefinitely. I tend to agree with the recent court ruling in that to hold them without charging them indefinitely goes against the ideals of America. I think that the ideals of the Constitution should be applied to all people no matter where they come from. The constitutional ideals are for all people.

And yet these people are being denied anything even approaching those 'ideals'.

My point is that as far as the law is concerned I'm not sure there was any wrong done . Except of course in the case of those few you bring up.

Do you not think that holding people indefinately without charge and no access to a lawyer is OK as far as the law is concerned?


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
    #2192493 - 12/20/03 06:41 AM (20 years, 4 months ago)

I think that is yet to be decided in the supreem court. they usualy don't hear cases where the law is already clear.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #2192503 - 12/20/03 06:53 AM (20 years, 4 months ago)

What do you think though? Would you accept the same treatment of US citizens by a foreign government?


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
Re: Human Rights violations at Guantanamo Bay [Re: Edame]
    #2192510 - 12/20/03 07:05 AM (20 years, 4 months ago)

I said what I think. Constitutional principals should apply to all people evenly. But in law it is not what you know but what you can prove.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* "torture-lite" and human rights after 9/11 Edame 821 4 06/28/03 08:08 AM
by Cornholio
* Human Rights... the Bush Way
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
kykeon 9,932 122 05/06/03 12:12 AM
by kykeon
* US out of UN human rights panel Weardo 647 4 11/28/02 04:31 PM
by SkiTTLeBrOW
* Should the US Follow the Geneva Convention?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Innvertigo 4,025 72 04/02/03 03:37 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* America is Great: just not right now
( 1 2 3 all )
PGF 4,199 48 06/21/02 03:26 AM
by iglou
* Rise of the far-right in France and Europe
( 1 2 3 4 ... 703 704 )
circastes 288,623 14,077 12/06/23 09:05 AM
by Enlil
* What are our rights? z@z.com 1,187 18 06/19/03 03:30 PM
by z@z.com
* Crimes against humanity
( 1 2 all )
Xlea321 2,459 27 04/17/03 09:17 PM
by Ellis Dee

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,230 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 13 queries.