What A Difference A Messiah Makes
by Big Dog on Jun 27, 2009 at 21:57 Political, Terrorism
When George Bush was president he had the terrorists who were caught on the battlefield held at various prisons and they were supposed to be tried under military commissions. Some were not, others were just held without being charged and others were deemed not to be a threat but no country would take them including the ones from which they came. Some said they could not go back or they would be executed (and people complain about how our government treats them).
The liberal left and their sock puppets at the ACLU were beside themselves. How dare Bush hold these people indefinitely without a trial or charges. We picked them up on a battlefield so let’s call them prisoners of war. We can hold them for a long time like until the war is over. The left did not like that and I can sympathize. This is not like a normal war where our enemy wears uniforms and represent a country. The terrorists are cowards who sneak around and fight for the cause regardless of what country they are from or which one they are in. But is it our fault no one will take them? Is it our fault that they were caught on a battlefield? If you don’t want to get caught don’t be on the battlefield.
Barack Obama said he would close Gitmo by January 2010 but he is finding it difficult to get rid of the detainees. He is learning that campaign rhetoric is one thing but when you actually have the information in front of you that things are a lot different. However, Obama is about to take care of this. The administration is carefully crafting an Executive Order allowing the indefinite imprisonment of some Gitmo detainees who are deemed to dangerous to send to trial or to release.
What was that? Obama is going to sign an Executive Order allowing the same thing that Bush did. Well where is the outrage by the left? The ACLU is up in arms but where are the morons at Kos? Where are the HuffPo blowhards? Where are the Code Pink twits? Where are all these groups that had epileptic seizures over this issue?
Seems that there is not much opposition when the messiah decides to do this. However, it is not final and the story hit just before the weekend, a classic way to avoid scrutiny and it was released at a time the news is dominated by the death of pop culture idol Michael Jackson.
Let’s see how this plays out. Will the Democrats oppose this? Will they lose their minds or will they embrace it? Will they do like that moron Olberman who praises Obama for things that Bush did and which earned the scorn of the dork at PMSNBC?
I think we should hold them as long as we need to. If they can be released we need to keep looking for places that will take them (the USA is not an option) just like Bush did. If we have people who can be tried then we should have a trial and if they win they get to go home, not stay here.
We also need to tell our troops that capturing these people on the battlefield is not an option. Shoot to kill them all and we will not have to worry about this.
However, the issue here is Obama and his endorsement of the policies of George Bush and the relatively little notice it has gotten. If Obama keeps endorsing the tactics of Bush then Bush’s place in history will be a good one that Democrats cannot debate (it will be good regardless).
Where is that fickle left? I want to see the outrage from the same groups that went after Bush. I want to see them have some guts and stand up for what they say they believe in.
Fat chance. They voted for this piker and they will do everything to make sure he is a “success.”
Source:
Yahoo News
Salon (one lefty loon who is opposed)
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: detainees, hypocrisy, indefinite hold, michael jackson, no trial, Obama, terror
You won’t see outrage from the left- they have their head too far up Hiz Lownesses’ butt to see where he is leading, and they are so indoctrinated that they will actually believe that he is doing good even as he is taking away THEIR rights.
Too blind to believe the truth.
Bigd: “The liberal left and their sock puppets at the ACLU were beside themselves. How dare Bush hold these people indefinitely without a trial or charges.”
DAR
Yes, imagine a civil liberty organization being concerned about preserving a person’s right to defend themselves in accordance with our constitution! How dare they!
And then, you guys, who posture yourselves as caring so much about constitution, willing to throw it all out when it comes to actually being applied. You do realize, that if you toss your principles when they are called upon, they really weren’t your principles. You were just posturing. They’re only your principles if you hold to them when the going gets tough.
Bigd: “We picked them up on a battlefield so let’s call them prisoners of war. We can hold them for a long time like until the war is over.”>>
DAR
You keep saying this as if it means anything even after it has been repeatedly refuted. We know, categorically, that many of these people were turned over, by snitches, for payola. That is *not* “picked up on the battlefield.” That is people settling scores and making money while enticing us to torture and kill innocent people. I’m against that. You should be too. Specific examples provided upon request.
D.
I don’t want to bust your bubble but OUR Constitution does not apply to those who are not citizens. They do not have Constitutional rights because in order to you must be a citizen of the country to which the Constitution applies.
This is a problem, people want to apply these things to people who have no claim to them.
Some folks were picked up as a result of money. OK, but they must be in the group we have been trying to release and no one will take them.
There were plenty caught on the battlefield or taking part in hostility against our troops. Those folks should be held as POWs or tried for some crime. If we treat them as POWs they committed no crime as far as fighting goes so long as they followed the rules of war. Many have not and could be tried. As far as it goes, these people have no civil rights, human rights yes but civil no. Civil means of or pertaining to the citizens. The ACLU is supposed to stand for AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union.
American and Civil being the key. These people are not Americans and they are not citizens so civil does not apply to them.
And there was very little of what you call torture.
DOG
Will they do like that moron Olberman who praises Obama for things that Bush did…
SAV
Not sure what you’ve been smoking, Dog. On multiple instances, I’ve seen Olbermann get more fired up than usual when Obama pulls a Bushie. In fact, he’s already ripped Obama for backtracking on his “war”-related positions.
DOG
As far as it goes, these people have no civil rights, human rights yes but civil no.
SAV
Darrel makes a good point, and I think that it remains good despite your objection. A lot of Americans champion the Constitution due to the freedoms and rights therein, and that’s because those Americans feel that those are basic rights. (In fact, certain Americans continue to argue that our system should be imposed elsewhere in the world.) But the righties are arguing that these people don’t deserve these basic rights. You explain your reason as their lack of citizenship, which essentially argues that it is citizenship that grants those rights. And that’s just backward, isn’t it?
It is a citizenship that grants the Constitutional rights, yes- that is one of the perks of being a citizen- enemy combatants are judged by different standards, because, 1)- they are our enemy, and, 2)- they are not from this country, and 3)- they are, in this case, not even members of a recognized enemy organized army, but terrorists. Three reasons that argue for different than criminal treatment in these cases.
BIGD: “I don’t want to bust your bubble but OUR Constitution does not apply to those who are not citizens. They do not have Constitutional rights because in order to you must be a citizen of the country to which the Constitution applies.”
DAR
I am not at all sorry to bust your bubble. You are completely, flat, wrong. The US constitution does NOT say “citizens,” it says “persons” and it governs how our government interacts with, and treats, *persons.* I lived in this country, legally, as a non-citizen for 21 years (LPR status). If I was charged with something I would be treated as a *person* in line with the laws of the US constitution.
So this is a good day. Bigdog is going to learn something important.
There was a recent ruling on this which laid it all out:
****
“Boumediene v. Bush
On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the Military Commissions Act could not remove the right for Guantanamo captives to access the US Federal Court system. And all previous Guantanamo captives’ habeas petitions were eligible to be re-instated. The judges considering the captives’ habeas petitions would be considering whether the evidence used to compile the allegations the men and boys were enemy combatants justified a classification of “enemy combatant.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatants
These people are not citizens and the US supreme court says, under our constitution, they are entitled to be judged under our Federal courts system. Why? Because we are supposed to be a country that conducts itself with standards higher than those used during the inquisition.
More, from Cornell University about “alien” which are not citizens:
***
Rights, Privileges, and Duties of Aliens
Excerpt:
“Aliens also receive treatment very similar to the treatment that U.S. citizens receive in the context of the judicial system. For instance, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution apply to aliens residing within the United States. As such, the courts guarantee aliens the right to due process of law and equal protection of the laws. Courts have generally construed the Fourth Amendment as applicable to aliens as well. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures.
Congress has the preeminent power in terms of passing statutes that regulate immigration and alienage. Consequently, the United States Constitution enables Congress to delineate the rights, duties, and liabilities that accompany legal immigrant status. Congressional power in this realm, however, must comply with the qualification that any law resulting in disparate treatment between aliens and citizens must bear some relation to a legitimate goal impacting immigration law. When a law treats an alien differently from a U.S. citizen, courts treat the law as inherently suspect and apply strict scrutiny when considering the law’s constitutionality.”
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/alien
Bigd: “And there was very little of what you call torture.”>>
DAR
There was enough of it that in 2005 we knew of 44 killed.
D.
—————-
“If you could have seen the anguished expressions on the faces of those of us in the Defense Department upon seeing the photos, you would know how we feel today.”
Rummy was quick to indict the real criminals – namely “people [in Iraq] … running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs, and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise, when they had not even arrived in the Pentagon.”
One must have his priorities in order, after all. Rape, torture, and mutilation are grotesque (albeit permissible with presidential authorization) – but taking unauthorized photographs of war crimes and publicizing them before the Pentagon has a chance to cover up those acts? That’s an atrocity!” — Will Grigg
The biggest torture we have to contend with these days is the continued existence of the ACLU. They need to go away, one way or another, I do not care how.
“Torture” is a subjective thing- killing is not, and your examples always tilt to the left, so why should we believe you Darrel?
I agree that holding them indefinitely is not optimum- I say turn them over to their countries of origin- if they are killed, oh well, they won’t return to the battle field, will they?
BLK: ““Torture” is a subjective thing”>>
DAR
Easy to say from the comfort of your computer. It becomes less “subjective,” when it’s happening to you.
D.
Yes, I know- do you?
Oh- BTW- I will be cooking cabrito for friends on the fourth- too baaaad you can’t make it, D.
I said they deserved human rights. The legal system and our manner of doing things is based upon being a citizen. There are provisions that allow for voting. Are you contending that they should also be allowed to vote because we should extend our Constitutional rights to them?
The fact is our Constitution sets up the way we govern, our judicial system and the rights citizens enjoy. These people are not citizens. We champion the Constitution but we also know it applies to citizens. All people deserve basic human rights. Civil rights apply to citizens and the Constitution is applicable to them and only them.
Our system might work well in other parts of the world but if it is imposed I doubt it will be taken. People should want freedom and if they don’t then they can live in bondage.
As I said, those who were deemed to have done nothing wrong should be let go as soon as someone will take them. Bush tried that and now Obama is finding that it is not as easy as snapping his fingers.
Sorry, Olberman blasted Bush for the protection of phone companies that released records in good faith and then Obama backed that and Olberman said he was courageous. He has applied this double standard on a number of things.
I imagine Olberman is getting more critical because he is beginning to realize he was sold a bill of goods.
Bigd: “The fact is our Constitution sets up the way we govern, our judicial system and the rights citizens enjoy. These people are not citizens…. Civil rights apply to citizens and the Constitution is applicable to them and only them.”
DAR
Leave it to a Canadian (US citizen 2 years), who has never read the constitution, to teach the Big Dog on what the Constitution says:
****
Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive *ANY PERSON* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to *ANY PERSON* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
DAR
Emphasis mine. I doubt the Big Dog really has any trouble understanding what the words “any” and “person” mean.
D.
Perhaps you should read the Constitution- slowly, so you can actually learn something besides how to hide in our country so long before becoming a citizen.
I wonder if Blake has trouble understanding what the words “any” and “person” mean?
The “any person” as relates to the phrase you wrote is meant to denote a *citizen*, not just any person from any where.
There is and should be a difference.
So when necessary, you constitutional literalists, suddenly pretend you can’t even understand PLAIN ENGLISH.
Well, no matter. No one cares in the least what you think the constitution means anyway. The only opinion that matters is that of the SCOTUS. And they agree with me. See my case reference above. Apparently they can read plain English too!
D.
—————–
“…nor shall any State deprive *ANY PERSON* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to *ANY PERSON* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” –ibid
You know, I think they probably reviewed this document rather carefully before finalizing it and, if they had wanted to use the word “citizen” here, I think they would have used the word “citizen” here.
Yes, D- I agree- the 14th amendment needs to be revisited, so as to eliminate “anchor babies”. I am glad you agree.
DOG
The legal system and our manner of doing things is based upon being a citizen.
SAV
The legal system and our manner of doing things is based upon how some very wise people thought that things should be done. That’s why our system was designed that way.
DOG
Are you contending that they should also be allowed to vote because we should extend our Constitutional rights to them?
SAV
Please read for comprehension. This is a matter of what we should do, of how the situation should be handled. We designed our system to do the right thing. You want to apply different rules, regardless of what the Constitution grants to whom.
If system X was written into the Constitution because it is right, then system X should be applied regardless of the Constitution, which merely serves as a legal document that ensures that the government of the nation does the right thing.
Maybe a visual would help. You think that I’m arguing:
The Right Thing –> Constitution –> detainee treatment
I’m actually arguing:
1. The Right Thing –> Constitution
2. The Right Thing –> detainee treatment
Get it now?
DOG
Sorry, Olberman blasted Bush for the protection of phone companies that released records in good faith and then Obama backed that and Olberman said he was courageous.
SAV
Flat-out bull. I don’t see Olbermann all the time, but I did see that story. Olbermann was ticked. He ripped into the behavior.
You say that we designed the system to do the right thing- so why is Hussein trying so desperately to end- around the Constitution by making laws that subvert the intent of the Constitution (see: 10th Amendment) by making the states take the “stimulus”?
It should be up to the states and the states ALONE that decide whether this money has strings attached that they do not wish to become entangled in.
BTW- Olberman is a dipwad- retroactive abortion should be considered.
BLAKE
enemy combatants are judged by different standards, because, 1)- they are our enemy, and, 2)- they are not from this country, and 3)- they are, in this case, not even members of a recognized enemy organized army, but terrorists.
SAV
None of these “reasons” justify not doing the right thing. It’s that simple. Darrel’s not a dittohead Republican (he’s your enemy), he’s not from this country (originally, anyway), and he’s not a member of an organized army (he merely keeps nailing you with silly things like facts and evidence). Clearly, you righties should string him up without trial, right?
Note that your #3 argument is circular. Some of these people have not been terrorists; this is all the more reason they need trials and fair treatment. In fact, that alone should override numbers 1 and 2, even if they weren’t insufficient.
BLAKE
You say that we designed the system to do the right thing- so why is Hussein trying so desperately to—–
SAV
You’re not responding to my comment. You’re changing the subject. Why, Blake? Why are you changing the subject? You just can’t counter my points, can you? Run away, Blake! Run away!
BLAKE
BTW- Olberman is a dipwad- retroactive abortion should be considered.
SAV
You’re in favor of killing him because you don’t agree with him? No wonder you want to deprive Gitmo detainees.
You clearly have no credibility when it comes to treatment of anybody.
Darrel- uh, Sav- The right thing in this case is not necessarily the Constitutional thing, but I do not expect you to understand- you keep calling me a Dittohead Republican, which is also wrong, but then your type sees rightwing conspiracies everywhere.
And as regards the Olberdouche comment- I find it telling that you are all for killing fetuses, but balk at axing Keith, who surely is not as innocent as a baby.
I responded to your comment by asking if the Constitution is so sacred to you, why do you not call out your revered leader about his attempts to subvert the Constitution with regards to these taxing laws he keeps passing in contravention to the Constitution’s intent, or do you cherry- pick your Constitutional “issues” to suit you?
BLAKE
The right thing in this case is not necessarily the Constitutional thing, but I do not expect you to understand-
SAV
And I don’t expect you to give good reasons why it’s not. You gave three pathetically lousy reasons that have now been rebutted to the extent that you have no substantive response.
BLAKE
but then your type sees rightwing conspiracies everywhere.
SAV
A conspiracy is a covert attempt to do something. Dittohead-ism isn’t a conspiracy at all. You guys openly agree with each other’s vacuous arguments.
BLAKE
the Olberdouche comment-
SAV
Everyone, I now present to you: Mr. High Road Blake! Keep it up, Mr. High Road. You’re making yourself look greeeaat.
BLAKE
I find it telling that you are all for killing fetuses, but balk at axing Keith, who surely is not as innocent as a baby.
SAV
Nowhere have I said that I’m “all for killing fetuses.” But you want to execute Olbermann, who hasn’t committed any crime. It just supports my suspicion that you only give a rip about proper treatment of people when those people agree with you, the rest be damned.
BLAKE
I responded to your comment by asking if the Constitution is so sacred to you—-
SAV
And I explained to you and Dog that the Constitution is not the “sacred” item; The Right Thing is the “sacred” item. Why don’t you understand this? Is the concept of doing the right thing for the right reasons unintelligible to you, or what?
BLAKE
or do you cherry- pick your Constitutional “issues” to suit you?
SAV
Look, Blake, I’ve explained multiple times now that I don’t consider this simply a Constitutional issue. Frankly, I think it takes severe problems with reading comprehension to have missed this point. Though it might be the case that the Constitution legally determines what we have to do, my argument is that there’s something we’re supposed to do regardless of what the Constitution does or doesn’t say.
So Sav- in your mind, “the right thing” is what you perceive it to be, but not what we perceive it to be? How strange.
BLAKE
The biggest torture we have to contend with these days is the continued existence of the ACLU. They need to go away, one way or another, I do not care how.
SAV
You just can’t stand a group that fights for civil rights, huh? I’m not surprised.
BLAKE
So Sav- in your mind, “the right thing” is what you perceive it to be, but not what we perceive it to be? How strange.
SAV
You believe that citizens should be treated in certain ways because those ways are the right ways. You want to treat Gitmo detainees differently; you want to treat Gitmo detainees in ways other than the right ways.
See, Blake, in your attempt to be clever, you simply exposed how superficial your reasoning skills are.
The mistake was we did not question them in the field, and then leave them there- no need for Gitmo then, and buzzards need to eat too- it’s good for the ecology.
The Constitution starts out “We the People of the United States…”
This phrase certainly means that the people refer to citizens of the United States. The people of the US are its citizens. The phrase people and person indicate citizens.
The right of the people to peaceably assemble, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, everywhere people is mentioned it means the citizenry.
The 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted. The giys who wrote it clearly said that children born to citizens of other countries were not US citizens. They were not subjects of the country (had no allegiance to it) so they were not subject to the jurisdiction (as in a subject of the country). This is written clearly by those who wrote it.
The problem you libs have with the Constitution is that you see it as a document in which government gives certain powers or rights to the people. The Constitution is a document from the PEOPLE (citizens) that tells what powers the citizens grant it. It also affirms, in the Bill of Rights, that the pre-existing rights enumerated shall not be infringed by the government.
With regard to your claim about the SCOTUS. They got it wrong because they too took the approach of what government allows.
The specific issue of habeas corpus is addressed in the Constitution but it is not a new idea. The writ of habeas corpus existed as a principle of law long before we became a country. In the Constitution the PEOPLE are telling government that they may not suspend this long established writ.
The Constitution does not apply to people who are not citizens because people means citizens when used in the context used in the Constitution.
However, habeas corpus is a long established legal principle and is part of international law and a human right.
As I said, they have human rights and they are subject to international law. They are however not covered by our Constitution.
As we sit here and write Obama is preparing an Executive Order to allow these people (and anyone the government deems a threat) held indefinitely and without trial. Be sure to keep some of your venom for your messiah because he is doing exactly what Bush did.
We cannot call them POWs technically because they do not fit the definition but we have given them the rights of POWs. Many had some sort of hearing and it was determined they could be released. If no one will take them we have to hold them. What would you suggest we do?
I say send them home and let them deal with their problems there.
The others could receive a trial if we let the military commissions go through like planned.
As for habeas corpus, we told them why they are being held. Some are held as combatants and if they did nothing else wrong except shoot at us then we can hold them and do not need to charge them.
The issue is a tricky one but our Constitution is from We the People (the citizens). It tells government what we allow them to do.
As for being the right thing to do. Following international law is good enough. How do we know who has been charged and who is waiting for a trial?
They were picked up by the military and should go through a tribunal. The criminal courts should handle criminal matters and the military should handle matters of war.
Four Winds
Natural Born…
In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
…
Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.Source
So you are going to to stay with the line that you don’t understand what the words “any” and “person” mean? That’s your argument?
Oh, and the SCOTUS can’t read plain English either. And when they do read and understand plain English, *they’re* wrong. Got it.
Very convincing!
D.
—————
“…nor shall any State deprive *ANY PERSON* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to *ANY PERSON* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” –ibid
“person” is, once again for the terminally stupid, referring to a *citizen* of the United States- this shouldn’t have to be explained this often, but perhaps you need to take off the foil hat to make the connection.
BLK: ““person” is,… referring to a *citizen* of the United States”>>
DAR
Now you’re just being dishonest. There is a difference between saying something applies to a “citizen” and saying something applies to “any person.”
Notice, they didn’t just write “person” but specifically, “ANY person.”
I don’t think the founders were so GD stupid that they didn’t know the difference.
A child knows the difference. More importantly, the SCOTUS knows the difference (see the case referenced above).
Besides, you already conceded this when you said:
“The right thing in this case is not necessarily the Constitutional thing…”
So you know your claim is categorically unconstitutional, and false. You just don’t care.
D.
—————-
an⋅y
–adjective
1. one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification:
per⋅son
–noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child
The XXII Amendment reads: No PERSON shall be elected to the office of the president…
Does this mean that any person can be elected president citizen or not but can’t be elected more than twice or does the word person indicate citizen since that is a requirement?
The Supreme Court ruled that the XIV Amendment only affords all persons equal protection if they are in the United States. This court ignored that precedent and indicated that habeas corpus was guaranteed to them under our Constitution. It is not. It is a recognized part of law and has been long before we were a country or had a Constitution. The right thing is to afford them what is allowed under international law. Our Constitution does not apply to them and the “rights” afforded by the court are for those who are here, in our territory.
BIGD: “Does this mean that any person can be elected president citizen or not but can’t be elected more than twice or does the word person indicate citizen since that is a requirement?”>>
DAR
Simple, the category of “person” necessarily includes the category of “citizens.”
The category of “citizen” does not include the category of “persons.”
All citizens are persons, not all persons are citizens.
So they can, consistently use the term “person” in a category that refers to citizens.
What they cannot do, with any understanding of basic English, is say something refers to “any person” and then have that category apply only to citizens. That makes no sense. “Any person” includes all “citizens.” “Citizens” does not include “all persons.”
Please give the founders a little more credit than to suggest they didn’t know this.
Bigd: “Our Constitution does not apply to them and the “rights” afforded by the court are for those who are here, in our territory.”>>
DAR
The SCOTUS says you’re wrong. You lose. No exceptions.
D.