Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) began on Wednesday to filibuster the Senate vote on confirming John Brennan to be CIA director, saying he is blocking the vote because of President Obama’s claimed authority to assassinate American citizens in the drone war without due process.
“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA I will speak until I can no longer speak,” Paul said. “I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”
Paul warned he might block the vote on Brennan if he was still unsatisfied with the Obama administration’s response to his repeated inquiries on the question of killing US citizens in the drone war.
In a letter responding to Paul’s questions, the Obama administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder wrote that the President does have the authority to kill US citizens on US soil without any due process.
“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder wrote.
The back-and-forth began after the leaking of a Justice Department white paper on targeted killings of US citizens, which was written to retroactively justify the CIA’s assassination, on the orders of the President, of US-born Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011. Other Americans have also been killed in the drone war, including AbdulRahman Awlaki, Anwar’s 16-year old son.
Paul’s filibuster drew comparison’s to actor Jimmy Stewart’s portrayal of Jefferson Smith in the 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a character who filibusters by forcing debate for 24-hours.
“Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a President to say he might kill Americans?” Paul asked. “But he will judge the circumstances, he will be the sole arbiter, he will be the sole decider, he will be the executioner in chief if he sees fit.”
“No one person, no one politician should be allowed to judge the guilt, to charge an individual, to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. It goes against everything that we fundamentally believe in our country,” Paul continued.
Paul summed up the purpose of his ongoing filibuster, which at the time of this writing is approaching six hours, when he said “I’m asking the President to state clearly that he’s not in favor of summary executions.”
Paul was eventually joined by a few of his Senate colleagues, including Ted Cruz (R-TX), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and others.
More than four and a half hours into the filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid interrupted Paul’s wide-ranging speech by proposing 90 more minutes of debate, and then allowing the vote.
Rand Paul formally objected, insisting that he would end the filibuster immediately, only if President Obama declares “the drone program will not kill Americans who are not involved in conflict. If not, I will continue to object.”
Late into the evening, a visibly tired Senator Paul made a proposal. If adopted unanimously by the Senate, Paul said, he would end the filibuster immediately.
The proposal was a non-binding resolution opposing the President’s ability to kill Americans in drone strikes on US soil. Senator Dick Durbin, speaking for the majority, rose to say he objects to Paul’s non-binding resolution.
excellent well done Rand…..
American citizens on American soil? What about the rest of the world?
They've already declared that they can kill us then, and have already killed Americans abroad.
heath,
I agree. Finally, a sitting United States Senator with brains, and guts! My question is, why isn't the ENTIRE U.S. Senate filibustering Brennan? Why are there only a "few others" and why is the Nevada Troll Harry Reid pushing for a vote on Brennan with such a heinous policy in play?
The reason the entire Senate is not supporting Ron Paul in filibustering Brennan is because the rest of the senate is owned and controlled by Israel.
The reason the entire Senate is not supporting Ron Paul in filibustering Brennan is because the rest of the senate is owned and controlled by Israel.
Let the voters decide and require each voter to disclose if they have a great job, a terrific home and a deluxe healthcare plan. A sure way to know which voters are of the 51% most wealthy
WTF???
What the hell does this have to do with DRONES??? and ASSASSINATIONS??
well the Ted Bundy administration is at it again, their modus operandi is to kill,kill,kill and kill again, their appetite for killing people overseas as diminish somewhat, so lets start killing our citizens we are the untouchables!!
Finally Rand Paul actually does something not embarrassing/horrible/ridiculous. Will he be able to keep it up?
Actually the whole "U.S. soil" thing seems a bit limited. Further, he seems to have no problem with summary executions of non-US citizens (sub-humans, presumably) but I guess we must take what we can get in these dark times.
That is the key problem with his argument. It accepts the empire.
I propose a non-binding resolution which states that the word "decider" does not mean decision maker.
"asking the President to state clearly that he’s not in favor of summary executions"
I appreciate the gesture, it's part of the right thing to do, and it might be as good as could be expected. But as for that soundbyte, I'd just as soon ask the devil to state-clearly-that-he-aint-favorable to horns, …or perhaps that-he-renounces pitchforks… . Screw him: this is America, he's prosecutable for murder, and he should fry.
By the time any politician reaches the pinnacle of the American system, they are well skilled in saying one thing and doing another. I have no doubt that Obama could walk out into the Rose Garden, make such a statement publicly, then walk back into his office and order the murder of American. Same goes for Dubya, Clinton and Poppy Bush. They all would lie to your face, then kill you.
Rand is right but he fails to understand that the presidency is like a drone. It is indiscriminate. He could knock down the pillars of absurdity like how the US supports similar groups that have attacked us in the past. How the US supports a regime that supports them (Saudi Arabia). That is something he could do and not be called an anti-Semite. The US can try and control a leaky spigot in the Middle East but the black mold will continue to ruin its health.
Yes, Finally somebody in Washington is standing up for the American people!
I'm a die-hard Democrat, but if the Republicans nominate Paul for President, the Democrats will have a hell of a time convincing me that they, and not Paul, are the guarantors of my Constitutional Rights. Hillary, in my book, has already disqualified herself on that account. This will be a tough act to follow, and I don't see any Democratic talent on the horizon.
Send Sen. Paul a note of support, even if you're not in agreement with him on other issues, IMHO he deserves an 'attaboy' for this gesture.
Same for the other Sens at the end of the article who ended up supporting him.
"It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder wrote.
Sorry, but there is plenty of examples of this kind of thinking — Wounded Knee I and II, Sand Creek, Selma, Ludlow, Veterans March on Washington…………………………………………………….
Nothing new, move along now
Well done Rand.
I for one cannot imagine a circumstance "in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States". In what circumstance does the Constitution allow the president to break the Constitution? And this clown allegedly a lawyer?
If we except the illusions that the Constitution is so imperfect that our President may arbitrarily violate the Constitution, then such a paper smokescreen was created just to hide human bondage and a rich man’s anarchy.
Dick Durbin can go f*ck himself. I don't have rights, DICK?
Constitution is worthless — As any dictator may enslave us with it
I'll save my applause for when Rand stands up for the Americans who were killed on the USS Liberty.
Rand is the best news of the day, and it ain't that good. Thanks to Rand for at least looking out for SOME people.
From Rand Paul Website ….
"Sen. Paul Reaches Victory Through Filibuster
White House issues answer after Senator’s 13-hour speech
Mar 7, 2013
Today, following a historic 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor that ended early this morning, Sen. Rand Paul received correspondence from the White House regarding the legality and constitutionality of the U.S. government using lethal force, including drone strikes, on Americans and in U.S. territory. Sen. Paul's repeated correspondence to President Obama's nominee to be CIA director, John Brennan, was finally answered today, in part, with the following response from Attorney General Eric Holder: "'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."
"This is a major victory for American civil liberties and ensures the protection of our basic Constitutional rights. We have Separation of Powers to protect our rights. That's what government was organized to do and that's what the Constitution was put in place to do," Sen. Paul said. "I would like to congratulate my fellow colleagues in both the House and Senate and thank them for joining me in protecting the rights of due process.""
The statement from the AG is still incredibly full of loopholes. Reading it, it appears that the President does claim the authority to kill any American citizen on American soil as long as he doesn't used a "weaponized drone" to do it.
And even then, what's the exact definition of a 'weaponized drone". If he uses an "unmanned fighter plane" to do it, can he kill me with that renamed craft.
From the reaction of most of the senate, I'd say that they are acting as elites without regard to the Constitution and Bill of Rights and they should be considered in violation of being our representatives and their oath of office. I find that Senator Dick Durbin's objection to Paul’s non-binding resolution very disturbing and this jerk should be given a one way ticket out of this country for his attitude against someone who is speaking up about what made this country a special place at one time.
Our founding fathers should have put term limits into place so that these senators who think they are supreme and above us would not be allowed to stay in there and become corrupt. They seem intent on turning this country into a fascist dictatorship with a king in charge and a militaristic police state in place. I just hope that enough people wise up to vote most of them out of office permanently.