Rand Paul ends filibuster against CIA director nominee after almost 13 hours
Updated 2:50 a.m. EST
Rand Paul's filibuster: What you may have missed
WASHINGTON Sen. Rand Paul ended his self-described filibuster against the confirmation of President Obama's nominee to lead the CIA early Thursday - at 12:39 EST -- just short of thirteen hours after the Kentucky Republican and tea party favorite began speaking.
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, also a Kentucky Republican, said he would continue to oppose Brennan's confirmation and try to keep the debate going.
After Paul yielded the floor, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., filed a motion to cut off debate on Brennan's nomination and bring it up for a vote.
Paul, a critic of Mr. Obama's policy on unmanned drones, started just before noon by demanding the president or Attorney General Eric Holder issue a statement assuring that the aircraft would not be used in the United States to kill terrorism suspects who are U.S. citizens. He wasn't picky about the format, saying at one point he'd be happy with a telegram or a tweet.
- Rand Paul filibusters against CIA director nominee over drones
- Rand Paul: U.S. going to "drop a drone hell-fired missile on Jane Fonda?"
- Cruz, Holder spar over potential drone strike on U.S. soil
Paul said he recognized that he can't stop Brennan from being confirmed. But the nomination was the right vehicle for a debate over the limits of the federal government's ability to conduct lethal operations against suspected terrorists, he said.
As he concluded his hold on the floor, Paul said, "I am hopeful that we have drawn attention to this issue, that this issue won't fade away, that the president will tomorrow (he meant Thursday) come up with a response. I would like nothing more than to facilitate the continuation of the debate tomorrow."
Paul, 50, received intermittent support early on from several other conservative senators holding similar views, plus Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon. Paul spoke almost continuously for five hours before Majority Leader Harry Reid tried but failed to move to a vote on Brennan.
Separately, Democratic Sen. Pat Leahy, of Vermont, spoke Wednesday about the possibility of voting against the Brennan nomination due to the drone issue.
Paul snacked on candy at the dinner hour while continuing to speak. At one point, Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., who walks haltingly with a cane because of a stroke, delivered a canister of hot tea and an apple to Paul's desk, but a doorkeeper removed them. Rep. Louie Gohmert, a conservative from Texas, stood off to the side of the Senate floor in a show of support. Other well-wishers with privileges to be on the floor shook his hand when he temporarily turned the speaking over to his colleagues.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, read Twitter messages from people eager to "Stand With Rand." The Twitterverse, said Cruz, is "blowing up." And as the night went on, Cruz spoke for longer periods as Paul leaned against a desk across the floor. Cruz, an insurgent Republican with strong tea party backing, read passages from Shakespeare's "Henry V" and lines from the 1970 movie "Patton," starring George C. Scott.
Dressed in a dark suit, white shirt and red tie, Paul read from notebooks filled with articles about the expanded use of the unmanned weapons that have become the centerpiece of the Obama administration's campaign against al Qaeda suspects. As he moved about the Senate floor, aides brought him glasses of water, which he barely touched. Senate rules say a senator has to remain on the floor to continue to hold it, even though he can yield to another senator for a question.
"No president has the right to say he is judge, jury and executioner," Paul said.
Not all Republicans were so enthusiastic about Paul's performance. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the prospect of drones being used to kill people in the United States was "ridiculous" and called the debate "paranoia between libertarians and the hard left that is unjustified."
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, echoed Graham. He said it is unconstitutional for the U.S. military or intelligence agencies to conduct lethal counterterrorism operations in the United States against U.S. citizens. Suggesting they can or might, Rogers said, "provokes needless fear and detracts attention from the real threats facing the country."
Later in the evening, Paul, the son of former Texas congressman and libertarian leader Ron Paul, offered to allow a vote on Brennan if the Senate would vote on his resolution stating that the use of the unmanned, armed aircraft on U.S. soil against American citizens violates the Constitution. Democrats rejected the offer.
Reid, D-Nev., said he planned to file a motion to bring debate over Brennan's nomination to an end, if not on Thursday, then Friday or next week. Reid had pushed for a confirmation vote Wednesday.
Technically, the Senate had not even started the debate on Brennan's nomination before Paul took control of the floor almost immediately after Republicans successfully blocked a vote on a federal appeals court nominee.
Along with Cruz and Wyden, Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Marco Rubio of Florida joined Paul briefly three hours into the debate but turned it back to him. Wyden has long pressed for greater oversight of the use of drones. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., appeared later in the evening to trade questions with Paul.
The record for the longest individual speech on the Senate floor belongs to former Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
As he was wrapping up, Paul joked, "I would go for another 12 hours to try to break Strom Thurmond's record, but I've discovered there are some limits to filibustering and I'm going to have to take care of one of those in a few minutes here." That drew laughter from the chamber.
But Paul's performance clearly energized his colleagues, and even he seemed invigorated as the night progressed.
Holder came close to making the statement Paul wanted earlier in the day during an exchange with Cruz at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, according to Paul.
Cruz asked Holder if the Constitution allowed the federal government to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who doesn't pose an imminent threat. Holder said the situation was hypothetical, but he did not think that in that situation the use of a drone or lethal force would be appropriate. Cruz criticized Holder for not simply saying "no" in response.
In a letter sent Tuesday to Paul, Brennan said the CIA does not have authority to conduct lethal operations inside the U.S.
Holder told Paul in a March 4 letter that the federal government has not conducted such operations and has no intention of doing so. But Holder also wrote that he supposed it was possible under an "extraordinary circumstance" that the president would have no choice but to authorize the military to use lethal force inside U.S. borders. Holder cited the attacks at Pearl Harbor and on Sept. 11, 2001, as examples.
Paul said he did not dispute that the president has the authority to take swift and lethal action against an enemy that carried out a significant attack against the United States. But Paul said he was "alarmed" at how difficult it has been to get the administration to clearly define what qualifies as a legitimate target of a drone strike.
Brennan's nomination won approval Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee after the White House broke a lengthy impasse by agreeing to give lawmakers access to top-secret legal opinions justifying the use of lethal drone strikes against al Qaeda suspects overseas.
If confirmed, Brennan would replace Michael Morell, the CIA's deputy director who has been acting director since David Petraeus resigned in November after acknowledging an affair with his biographer.
Brennan currently serves as Obama's top counterterrorism adviser in the White House. He was nominated for the CIA post by the president in early January and the Intelligence Committee held his confirmation hearing on Feb. 7.
Popular in Politics
- FBI director acknowledges domestic drone use 155 Comments
- Next up for Obama: Major effort on climate change
- The 4 remaining Supreme Court cases to watch
- Michelle Obama and daughters tour Berlin Play Video
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities 77 Comments
- Senate deal seen near on key aspect of immigration reform
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 599 Comments
"do you believe every person should have their own moral code and be able to live within them".
Yes rubbish, nobody needs commercialized religion in order to understand and abide by any set of morals, since religion has proven just the opposite.
People can be spiritual without commercialized religion, and certainly don't need some priests practicing pedophilia to hypocritically set a list of morals that they can be forgiven for, within hours or days.
Maybe they're black.... or communists...maybe terrorists... or maybe they're druggies... What if they were American Indians? There's always been some category of USA citizens that the government could pretty much kill at will... ask ol' what's his name in federal prison...that AIM guy... Dennis something..
Why start complaining about it now? Fortunately, Rand is just grandstanding and he's not actually trying to limit government by legislation...because, let me tell you, trying to limit the power of the USA government after a century of almost absolute freedom could be uh... trouble starting. It could cause trouble.
Myself, as a freedom loving citizen of the USA, I trust my government explicitly, and I know they would NEVER abuse the absolute freedom they have to run this country any way they want to run it.
They're waaay too nice to ever actually abuse power... I say, give them MORE power.
This man works for the people of Kentucky, who elected him to represent them in the United States Senate. He has a profound responsibility to them. They need help, badly.
Kentucky students have been getting better faster than most of the country, but almost 20% of Kentucky high school students don't graduate.
The poverty rate is also almomst 20%. They have a 0.5% GDP growth rate. Almost 15% of them have no health insurance.
They are the 7th most obese state in the nation; close to a third of the whole population is obese. In all ten of the leading causes of death - heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, stroke, accidents, Alzheimers, diabetes, influenza/pneumonia, kidney disease and suicide - Kentucky's rates are higher than the average for the country. Infant mortality is higher than Cuba, Croatia or Slovakia; in parts of Kentucky, the rate is double the national average.
Perhaps Kentuckians can feel good about a low violent crime rate, but they rank 18th out of 50 states for political corruption (where being first is worst.)
This man also works for the people of the United States. I don't have to go through the problems the nation as a whole is facing; they strongly resemble the economic, educational, health, crime, and social problems of Kentucky. His job - the job of every member of the Senate - is to use his brains, talent and ability to address the key issues we face as a nation.
So what does Rand Paul consider a valuablel use of his time in Washington? Did he rise to address the Senate on any of these issues, to share his wisdom and urge their action on them? No. He rose to bloviate about a non-existent threat. He rose to demonize the government of his own country. He rose sow fear and spread distrust. He rose to support those who push a partisan political agenda that has no aim to deal with the problems of the country except as they serve as launch pads for their own political power and advancement. Above all, he rose to put his own face on screens across the country in pursuit of his own personal political ambitions and aggrandizement.
And that makes me sick. It makes me sick that we have to to this: that a man like Rand Paul can be looked upon as a leader, an exemplar, a voice worth listening to. it makes me sick that we think it is a good thing when a senator so perverts the office and the institution in pursuit of his own personal political agenda.
He is not alone. There are many like him, on both sides of the aisle.
When will we have had enough of this?
it all about these right wing nut jerks hijacking our country.