Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Gaming on Brent Barry you're looking at a live picture of the senate floor -- Kentucky Republican.
Rand Paul has been speaking for most of the last six hours.
I mean filibuster and to prevent a vote on the nomination of John Brennan a CIA director just listen for just a second.
Terrorists to Tuesday's.
Are you gonna put flash fought flash cards.
Of Americans out.
And pass some around the table in the Oval Office.
With pictures of Americans on -- and decide who's gonna die and who's gonna live.
Senator Paul is concerned about US drone policy so our members of the Judiciary Committee.
Who heard attorney general Eric Holder possibly change his position on the theoretical use of drones to kill US citizens on American soil.
Chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge has tonight's top story -- but it was -- you know a right.
-- -- simple answer had to be forced added attorney general Eric Holder.
Does the constitution.
Allow a US citizen on US soil who doesn't pose an imminent threat.
To be killed by the US government is a hypothetical.
I would not think that in that situation the use of a -- or lethal force would be appropriate because.
Let us get a little -- I have I have to tell you I find it remarkable.
-- in that hypothetical which is deliberately very simple.
You're unable to give a simple one word one syllable answer now.
It's not clear -- his response to the Senate Judiciary Committee is a reversal of this march 4 letter to Republican senator Rand Paul where he writes quote.
It is possible as opposed 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 authorized the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.
When your letter Sarah Paulson earlier this week you have to open.
The possibility -- using lethal force against American citizens and extraordinary circumstances.
On US soil.
Can you agree there's no scenario -- be appropriate to use an armed drone on US -- to strike an American citizen.
What I said in 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.
Holder also said lawmakers could not small -- use.
Congress has a constitutional authority to pass a law prohibiting the president's ability -- drone aircraft.
To use lethal force against American citizens on US soil I'm not sure that's such a bill would be constitutional.
Under pressure this week the administration provided a handful of the eleven government memos that justified the expanded drone campaign.
But only on a restricted basis to fifteen senators on the intelligence committee.
Now Republicans and Democrats -- all the drone policy memos and less secrecy from the Obama administration.
But I will.
Be bringing that to the attention of them.
The appropriate people within the administration I would strongly urge you -- cut to make that -- quickly and informed as forcefully as you can't.
Having provided more documents on -- Ghazi in drone attacks overseas is -- -- confirmation was a foregone conclusion.
But the attorney general's testimony today effectively threw gasoline.
On the throne fire -- and thank you.
Filter by section