Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Sen. slams Holder's 'refusal' to rule out US drone strikes

Details

  • Description

    Rand Paul not satisfied with attorney general's response

  • Duration 4:44
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Editor's Picks

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

Action -- -- attorney general now Eric Holder moments ago in the use of drones inside the United States now Capitol Hill hearing that didn't take place today holder says he has no intention.

Of allowing drone strikes here at home -- minutes ago watch.

Said it.

In the letter was that the government has no intention to carry out any drone strikes in the United States.

It's hard for me to imagine a situation in which that would occur.

We have within the United States the ability to use our law enforcement capacity as I laid out in his speech that you -- Northwestern University with regard to the use them.

These kinds of lethal force is one of the critical things was that -- possibility feasibility of capture was difficult.

In foreign lands Afghanistan Pakistan and other parts of the Middle East that is not the same thing here in the United States with the possibility capture.

There's obviously.

And enhance an as a result.

The the use of of drones is from my perspective something that is entirely entirely.

Hypothetical so there there's more to -- to talk to retired captain chuck -- former US navy captain Fox News military analyst.

Does that settle -- there captain.

Well bill I come from -- way -- in the military where you don't buy weapons that you don't intend to use.

What would you.

And if you look at what the Department of Homeland Security has been purchasing over the last year.

It comes out to like one point six billion rounds of ammunition -- more than 7000 fully automatic assault weapons.

2700.

M wrapped tight vehicles.

And -- drones.

Those are instruments of war.

Department of homeland securities who are they going to fight a war against.

How do you answer that.

I don't know that's a good question but you know bunch of people up here ought to be asking more questions about this.

Why do they need all of that stuff.

Which seems to be substantial to listen Rand Paul the Republican from Kentucky he's been.

He's been really after the -- trying to get answers from.

The attorney general until those comments it just happened and hearing.

All we had was a pretty long letters long statement -- -- -- About the possibility he referred again to be an unlikely to occur.

Entirely hypothetical.

Now what he suggested was.

That if you had a catastrophic.

Attack.

Such as September 11 or harbor perhaps that would be the hypothetical would -- that would enter into this equation.

Yeah how highly letter how are you to interpret -- -- how do you read that went.

Well I will read that lying to you -- -- make because he says.

For example the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize -- military use such force if necessary to protect the homeland.

In the circumstances of the catastrophic attack like the ones.

December 7 1941 September 11 2000.

-- one worst such an emergency to -- I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president on the scope of his authority.

Those were both.

Acts of war and they were surprise attacks.

That's not when you then -- win and start advising and and doing consumer outlets hang on make it what do you take from that then what is your interpretation.

This is completely -- muddled.

Letter.

It -- in military terms.

If this was my commander's intent I have no idea what he's talking about it it's it's conflicting its model who's the enemy.

Terrorists.

You know he you have.

True weapons of war here.

That are being purchased.

This this is not law enforcement equipment so.

What's going on and I and I think senator Paul is fully within his rights.

As a member of the congress to ask -- -- quite.

Reach out to the senator Woolsey we get a chance to get him back on on the air maybe even tomorrow but what we just heard from him in that statement.

And that hearing is similar what he told -- senator Paul arguing that law enforcement is best suited to resolve.

Any sort of conflict in this country.

That would -- -- suggest that he puts the police the FBI first right.

Absolutely.

And he is the at the chief law enforcement officer.

In the United States -- the FBI that works for him in the department of justice and and base and that comment then he would it would seem to suggest a drones are off the table.

But you know apparently are not so convinced of that based on what I hear -- if they're off the table -- buy them.

I go back to my original statement I come from way of life where you don't buy weapons that you don't intend to use after airport -- -- every chapter Rand Paul we'll get his reaction to -- and thank you.

Much and I appreciate your insight on that cap and Nash.

Load More