Why Rand Paul's filibuster matters
GOP senator takes a stand on administration's drone program
- Duration 10:54
- Date Mar 7, 2013
GOP senator takes a stand on administration's drone program
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
And -- -- -- alert you're looking live -- Kentucky senator Rand Paul he is on the senate floor worry continues to -- about buster it.
A vote to confirm John Brennan as the next CIA director.
He's now been speaking for more than nine hours will continue to monitor the floor all throughout this hour we'll bring you the very latest as it happens.
And was also a historic day on the floor of the US senate.
As Rand Paul successfully now has filibuster this vote to confirm John Brennan as the next director of the CIA.
Now senator Paul was standing on principles said he would not stop talking until this administration clarifies.
Why the president of the United States believes that he has the legal authority.
To use unmanned drones to kill US citizens right here on American soil by the way without a trial.
All this began at 11:45 this morning and it -- continued now on to this hour and this is how it all started watch that's.
I rise today to.
Begin to filibuster John friends nomination for the CIA.
I will speak.
Until -- -- no longer speak -- we'll speak as long as it takes until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast.
There -- 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 -- court.
And it went on from there now here's the back story now as we told you last night on this very program senator Rand Paul received a letter from the attorney general Eric Holder.
And was disturbed by the response that he received has holder refused to rule out the possibility of targeting American citizens for assassination.
On US soil and today just one day after sending that letter.
Holder went back before lawmakers on Capitol Hill and he was asked point blank about this once again watch lists.
Can you agree is no scenario -- appropriate to use armed drone on US soil to strike an American citizen.
Well -- what I said 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 -- would occur we have within the United States the ability to use our law enforcement capacity.
No intention hard to imagine.
Why can't -- just say now a senator Ted cruise -- baffled by holder's comments and is contradictions he pressed the attorney general even further watch lists.
You have a legal judgment on whether it would be constitutional.
To -- a US citizen on US soil in those circumstances a person who was not engaged.
As you described it this public hypotheticals but the as the -- of the way in which you have described this person sitting at the cafe not doing anything.
Imminently the use of lethal force would not be appropriate would not be something I find it remarkable that you still will not give an opinion on the constitutionality let me move on to the next top -- because we -- we have -- round and round let me be clear translate -- appropriate to know I thought -- was saying no but right now.
Right wait -- -- what exactly is the attorney general's position on this matter now first he says it's hard to imagine a situation where drones would be used in the US.
Many says such an action would be inappropriate.
Any sort of implies it would be unconstitutional.
In other words we have absolutely no idea where the administration's stance on an issue that each and every American citizen needs to be concerned about.
-- we that the president believes he has the right to target whoever he wants wherever he wants one every wants for assassination or they don't believe that.
-- that's why the Paul filibuster took place today I commend the senator for having the courage to stand up and in this case to the right thing.
Until we get answers John Brennan does not belong anywhere near Langley.
And joining me now with reaction Fox News political analyst Juan Williams and chairman of the faith and freedom coalition Ralph Reed.
-- the -- my -- -- version rob good to see if you know to be -- tell me.
This is madness -- they can't say yes no way they keep contradicting themselves give an answer.
Well I think the answer should be no should be but it's not -- the thing is the thing is -- an airplane and by the way senator Graham has said this with an airplane is headed towards the World Trade Center again we have the ability not that -- out -- this -- have to do -- okay -- -- -- -- talking and that's what -- what -- -- -- -- because the congress has authorized the president -- President Bush to go after and kill Barry is not -- that the essence of Rand Paul's question and the fact that they left the door open then tried to qualify -- we don't imagine and we don't intend.
That that's very -- -- that's that's very ambiguous language Ralph -- what do you think.
Well what what's happened -- -- is real simple and a president who ran saying that he was going to be the most transparent administration in US history.
Condemned what he called the bush administration's secret war against terrorism.
Said that it was being conducted without regard to what he called the quote compass of our values.
Is now conducting the most secretive.
Would modeled legal reasoning war on terror.
In the history of modern warfare and and the president and Eric Holder has painted themselves into this corner for really one very simple reason.
They refuse to capture terrorists in the field of battle.
Would not close gitmo after promising to do so.
Won't engage in perfectly legal interrogation techniques which by the way were critical of -- finding.
But some have been -- and said they say they won't interrogate terrorists but they're willing to now kill 3000 of them including the unprecedented.
Ordered targeted assassination.
But US citizens know what is -- Ralph caused by the residents Rafael.
Matthew -- went off on a litany of complaints but let me just say I am so shocked to hear Ralph Reed and they hear Sean Hannity -- -- -- -- know that we should not have the president the United States is going global war against.
People who wanna kill Americans people who -- I didn't say I don't know who and you -- don't even know that when items are done is that he hasn't closed Guantanamo -- I think you should be with a wanted to know what bothers me and I say there's a good when I should have realized I won't say we don't have both been on back on the battle woman don't twist my words what I said was.
He painted himself into this corner.
Because he said it was wrong to capture and interrogate terrorists are no miracle ridiculous that I can -- -- -- Ralph Ellison interrogate him but it kill and that's what I -- But let me go to step deeper here but as we can't ignore the left and specifically President Obama.
You know going around I will stop torture.
I will close gitmo saying that in Cairo right let's go back let's go to the videotape the same that is what money -- -- on American citizens is against waterboarding and enhanced interrogation.
Under my administration.
In the United States does not torture my administration.
-- going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt.
That we do not torture.
-- we abide by.
The Geneva conventions.
Waterboarding is torture.
It's contrary to America's traditions.
It's country -- ideals.
That's not who we are that's not how we operate and anybody who was actually.
The practice of waterboarding.
Would say that that is torch.
And that's not something we do.
Jose Rodriguez who was there for the waterboarding -- without those techniques we never would have gotten bin Laden.
By the way Leon Panetta admitted it as well -- we get into the -- he -- know he -- -- but let me stay on point here.
Because you're gonna tell me that the president.
Leaves the through his attorney general this ambiguous message that -- leave the door open on killing Americans on American soil -- that wait a minute without a trial.
No no conditions whatsoever -- layout that letter.
Is now the people that were against waterboarding the people that were against enhanced interrogation.
Drones are OK but not waterboarding don't you feel like you're in -- flip flops that you know -- not at all.
Just a moment ago you said if the airplane and you know where the World Trade Center.
You want the president to take out that -- but they left it what the other way around won't exactly I'll go ahead why has that other way around because what I'm.
Thanks -- hell yeah I'll tell you -- your way around.
All all Eric Holder had to do he he you know he didn't have to engage in these verbal gymnastics.
All he had to do was say -- legal scholars have established for centuries.
The president United States has a right to use his derivative powers as commander in chief.
To protect the homeland under two circumstances.
Number one to repel foreign invasion and number two to protect the homeland against attack.
-- thing that he asked to do to do so.
US citizens have been killed in past conflicts before.
They were killed during the civil war if they were involved and attacking the United States.
That's all he had to say instead it's imminent threat hypotheticals.
This is this is the most legally muddled confused administration.
I have ever seen and want it all gets back to the fact that he's constantly apologizing.
For the projection.
The US power and process you know I think that was a really Smart analysis but the thing is that's not what they're discussing what they're discussing is whether or not you can use a drone an armed drone.
To go after someone you've identified.
As a potential terrorist threat.
On US soil public netstat well and I don't we're not talking about the situation you get this right after they get to just decide what we think he's a terrorist he's not an -- -- -- going on he's not an imminent threat to anybody.
He's in a cafe have a little bit -- -- and drop a bomb on a -- did not spell out the circumstances Ralph.
Very are particularly laid out the conditions under which you would -- would be acceptable -- legal.
Right and what routes talking about I didn't play that -- and the reason they couldn't put this.
-- and attorney general won this is the attorney general United States.
And he couldn't articulate -- sworn testimony.
What I just said on a TV show but rather -- you had to do with a military action what they're talking about in the single individual -- Kennedy and all of that -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- out of state if the guy is about to attack me usually on until I'm surprised that you wouldn't want to answer that they can help I was.
How to who determines that that -- right over here.
That is limited -- any judicial oversight like libraries and any other is that the president was given authority by the congress to go after those terrorists but let me just say I agree that on the kill list I'm going -- -- I would like to have around review.
-- thank you both.