Paul's filibuster provokes answer from Holder

Rand Paul and Eric Holder / AP Photo

This post was updated at 3:17 p.m. ET

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., spoke for over 12 hours on the Senate floor yesterday, staging a filibuster of John Brennan's nomination to be CIA director.

Paul objected to the administration's recent assertion that it could legally use a drone strike against an American on U.S. soil in "extraordinary" circumstances that posed an imminent threat to national security, and today, it appeared as though the White House had taken note, with Attorney General Eric Holder responding to a letter Paul sent to the administration regarding the use of drones on U.S. soil.

White House press secretary Jay Carney read both Paul's question and Holder's response at today's briefing.

Play Video

Holder via Carney: "No" U.S. can't use drones to kill Americans not in combat

"Senator Paul has raised questions about the president's authority to use leghal force within the United States, which John Brennan and the Attorney General have both answered," Carney said. "Today, Sen. Paul raised an additional question and the Attorney General has answered it."

According to Carney, Paul asked, "Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?"

In his response, also read by Carney, Holder replied succinctly: "The answer to that question is no."

• Rand Paul "amazed" by support for filibuster
• Rand Paul ends filibuster against CIA director nominee after almost 13 hours

In a statement, Paul called Holder's response 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," he added. "That's what government was organized to do and that's what the Constitution was put in place to do. 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."

At the briefing today, Carney further urged lawmakers "promptly" confirm Brennan as CIA director, noting that his nomination cleared the Senate Intelligence Committee on a broad, bipartisan vote and adding, "This debate has nothing to do with the qualifications of John Brennan - Senator Paul said as much himself yesterday."

[DisabledVet1976]

This was beneficial refinement for all American citizens for basic civil rights. Why did they, Rand, Rubio and rumors of more, have to ask BHO to begin with? Obama & Holder forced these Republican leaders to step up to protect average citizens -- AND THEY DID. For those that don't remember the Patriot Act violations & sloppy expansion of police, prosecutorial & state judicial system powers from 1999 to 2008, especially due to U.S. Supreme Court decisions in mere knee-jerk rulings to 9/11. If it took this mere 12 hour loss of time to get this issue perfectly clarified, then that was good -- and you lost nothing for your political philosophy but 12 hours. Why are you not pleased with this forced admission??

[Rafterman11]

Wow, talk about a manufactured "victory" - getting an answer to a question already answered.

[Barry-been-inhalin]

Holder wants to try Kalhid Sheik Muhammad in a NY civilian court, and execute American citizens by drone.

[Rafterman11]

Ah. must be so easy to be a conservative - if reality doesn't match your rant, just make it up so that it does.

[nearl451]

Yaaaawn. What form of imbecile could come to the conclusion that the first clause is realated tothe second is quite amazing.


Civilian court has been pretty damned successful at convicting terrorists. The tribunal is having a hell of a time achieving a conviction for Muhammad.

There has not been the proper debate on targeting American citizens abroad or in the US by drone...in this or in the previous Administration. However, we at least know that this Administration does not believe it Constitutional to target non-combative American citizens here. There's a simple "no" to that scenario.

Capture and holding in Guatanamo is quite a diferent answer.....according to precedent.

[Barry-been-inhalin]

He is rebRANDing conservatism.

[Barry-been-inhalin]

Wait until they define "engaged in combat."

The Obama admin will inevitably keep that definition as broad or obscure as possible.

[Scimajor]

The whole point here is this. Did we really need Rand to tie up Congress for 14 hours to try and blackmail the President into answering what was an obviously loaded and idiotic question?

What next? Should we tie up Congress with the burning question of whether the President of the United States can nuke Rand for wasting tax dollars?

[Barry-been-inhalin]

Do they ever get anything done anyway?

[nearl451]

Amazing how easily Brennan was confirmed after this circus ended.

[zmonkee]

THAT'S what it took for Holder to answer a question?? Jeez--

also...is it me, or does Holder always have the expression on his face like he just got a whiff of a really bad fart??

[nearl451]

He had already answered the question.

Next time Paul filibusters, I want to hear more about the Aqua-budda.

[highlndr55]

nearl451:( He did not answer the question initially. Only after the filibuster and Carney read it. So did Holder actually say NO or was that just another OBAMA administration lie? They have told so many as of late. Even the Washinton Post has given numerous Pinochio awards.

[w_roos]

When it comes to the issue of my civil liberties / civil rights, I am way more concerned about the threats to them posed by people like Rond Paul and numerous other congressional conservative republicans, than the policies of Eric Holder and the Obama Administration. Relieved to see the latest round of political theatre come to an end...

[highlndr55]

Wait till the DRONE to lands on YOU!

[mrleme]

According to Carney, Paul asked, "Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?"

In his response, also read by Carney, Holder replied succinctly: "The answer to that question is no."

So the terms, an American engaged in combat on American soil, means that the President can issue a drone to kill that person. The tricky part: what is "engaged in combat" and how can that be turned? Can it mean anyone that opposes your leadership?

[RetiredArmy_Nurse]

This Rand Paul guy is such a joke. How can the people of Kentucky not cringe at the fact that he is their senator? We elected another crazie like him here in Wisconsin named Ron Johnson. He was also swept in by an uninformed electorate. When will America learn elections do have consequences? When you elect a narrowminded numbskull that is the government you get.

[cbs_tom]

So he is crazie for insisting on an answer to whether or not the President could kill an American on American soil with a Drone with missiles?