Senator uses old-style filibuster on CIA nominee

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican senator and tea party favorite from Kentucky used an old-style filibuster lasting nearly 13 hours to take control of the chamber and block Senate confirmation of John Brennan’s nomination to be CIA director.

Sen. Rand Paul ended his filibuster Thursday shortly after midnight, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, also a Kentucky Republican, said he would continue to oppose Brennan’s confirmation and resist ending the debate on President Barack Obama’s nominee to lead the spy agency.

Speaking hours later on the Senate floor, McConnell said Paul deserves an answer from Attorney General Eric Holder on whether the Obama administration has authority to use lethal force against a suspected terrorist who is a U.S. citizen.

“It simply doesn’t have that right, and the administration should just answer the question,” McConnell said. “There is no reason we cannot get this question answered today, and we should get this question answered today. Frankly, it should have been answered a long time ago.”

The Obama administration has said it has not conducted such operations inside U.S. borders, nor does it intend to. Paul and backers said that wasn’t good enough. They wanted the White House to rule out the possibility of them happening altogether.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Senate would vote to end the filibuster Saturday morning unless lawmakers can reach an agreement to vote earlier.

Paul’s performance, which centered on questions about the possible use of drones against targets in the United States, clearly energized a number of his GOP colleagues, who came to the floor in a show of support and to share in the speaking duties. And even as the night progressed, Paul appeared invigorated despite being on his feet for so long. Actual talking filibusters have become rare in the Senate, where the rules are typically used in procedural ways to block the other party’s agenda.

After Paul yielded the floor, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., filed a motion to cut off debate on Brennan’s nomination, setting up a vote for later this week.

Paul, a critic of Obama’s drone policy, started just before noon Wednesday 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. But by the time he left the Senate floor, Paul said he’d received no response.

Paul wasn’t picky about the format, saying at one point he’d be happy with a telegram or a Tweet. Paul said he recognized he can’t stop Brennan from being confirmed. But the nomination was the right vehicle for a debate over what the Obama White House believes are the limits of the federal government’s ability to conduct lethal operations against suspected terrorists, he said.

“No president has the right to say he is judge, jury and executioner,” Paul said.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee used Paul’s stand to raise money for GOP candidates and said Thursday that they received donations “in the high five figures as of last tally.”

About a dozen of Paul’s colleagues who share his conservative views came to the floor to take turns speaking for him and trading questions. McConnell congratulated Paul for his “tenacity and for his conviction,” and he called Brennan a “controversial nominee.”

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.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., made references to rappers Jay-Z and Wiz Khalifa. Rubio, a possible GOP presidential candidate in 2016, chided the White House for failing to respond to Paul. “It’s not a Republican question. It’s not a conservative question,” Rubio said. “It’s a constitutional question.”

The tea party-backed Paul first stepped onto the national stage in 2010 when he vanquished McConnell’s chosen Senate candidate in a GOP primary in Kentucky. Since then, he’s reveled in the popularity he has with the tea party and inherited his father’s libertarian-leaning political network, built over two failed Ron Paul presidential runs. All that has stoked belief inside GOP circles that he may be positioning himself for a future national campaign, possibly as early as 2016.

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-Qaida suspects overseas. 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.

Not all Republicans were as 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 he called the debate “paranoia between libertarians and the hard left that is unjustified.”

Paul, who is the son of former Texas congressman and libertarian leader Ron Paul, offered at one point during the filibuster 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.

Along with Cruz, Rubio and McConnell, other Republicans who joined Paul on the floor included Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Jerry Moran of Kansas, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Tim Scott of South Carolina, John Thune of South Dakota and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., also made an appearance. Wyden has long pressed for greater oversight of the use of drones.

Holder came close to making the statement Paul wanted earlier Wednesday 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 on U.S. soil a U.S. citizen 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 who 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.

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.

Paul ended his lengthy speech with a joke. He said that he was tempted to go another 12 hours and try to break Thurmond’s record, but he needed to use the bathroom.

“I discovered that there are some limits to filibustering, and I’m going to have to go and take care of one of those in a few minutes,” Paul said.

Reid said Thursday that he’s been involved in a few filibusters, and “what I’ve learned from my experience is to succeed you need strong convictions and also a strong bladder.”

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.

———

Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (8)


1) Comment by Whatnow - 07/03/2013

Rand Paul, the only man in Washington with steel ones.

2) Comment by jedleland - 07/03/2013

as for Paul, my favorite highlight from his checkered career of fairweather libertarianism concerned his medical practice. his dad is also a doctor (along with being bosom buddy of far right aryan groups, militias, and marchiafava wannabe revolutionary types, much to his embarrassment during the last election). ron paul never took medicare or medicaid patients believing those programs to be unconstitutional and unseemly. what about rand? he took half his (hefty)income from those taxpayer-funded patients. when asked about this less-than-principled decision (given his supposed libertarianism) his only answer was 'a doctor is entitled to make a living'. Charlatan indeed.

3) Comment by jedleland - 07/03/2013

You are right of course, although I would argue that Mr Pauls dog and pony show was a PR stunt to bolster his presidential ambitions more than anything else. But liberals are rightly concerned over civil liberties erosions by this president, and its one of the many factors of his style and administration that vex us when our friends on the troglodyte right insist on calling him a leftist progressive liberal far left socialist. He isnt and never was. Hes a moderate pragmatist. Im happy to be called a leftist, a socialist a liberal. I would like for selfish reasons a president that fits that bill. Despite his qualities (and underlying latent liberalism) this president is too timid to embrace a progressive agenda, and too much the moderate go-along-get-along type to push any true liberal agenda. Hence Obamacare (instead of single payer), toothless attempts at gun control, 4 years of hemming and hawing before embracing LGBT equality, questionable decisions on matters of warfare and enemy targeting, and so on. I think he's a good man and a very smart one – much more intellectually vigorous than his predecessor. But also overly cautious and without the political instincts necessary to do what he would really like to do. i think given his secret druthers he's be a lot more liberal. but his pragmatism wins out every time.

4) Comment by GardenVariety - 07/03/2013

While I typically loath Rand Paul, a charlatan who postures as a "libertarian" when it serves his needs, I wholeheartedly agree with him on the topic he raised. Even though I am a left- winger who he'd consider to be the political equivalent of the anti-Christ, I applaud him for bringing up this looming concern. Most liberals, along with moderates and conservatives, have acquiesced on the use of drone strikes, secret detention facilities, indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, and the dissolution of habeas corpus. Pres. Obama has not only continued the erosion of privacy, civil liberties, and human rights that began under Pres. Bush II. I hope that more Americans--across the political spectrum--challenge the Administration, Justice Dept., and the majority of Congress on this matter.

5) Comment by jedleland - 07/03/2013

poor old mark hardly anyone bothers even responding to your trolling anymore. ive told you before man, you need new material!. i did like this line from another comment : " It is like saying, I feel that a certain man will endanger my family at one point in the future, killing us all... so, I will take it upon myself to kill him first. We can NOT do that and the president should not be able to either!" wasnt that what Iraq was all about?

6) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 07/03/2013

Instead of "filibuster," the word de jure should be "impeachment."

7) Comment by DMJ - 07/03/2013

I hate that we use the term "old-style filibuster" at all. If a Senator wants to filibuster, he should have to actually do what Paul did, not just threaten to do so. Republican senators have used the mere threat of a filibuster an unprecedented number of times in the past four years. Saying nothing of the merits of his objection, it's refreshing to see a Republican senator actually get up and do the thing.

8) Comment by foldgers - 07/03/2013

Yes or no. Two words almost every career politician will NEVER use. You could ask them if there name was "Sinclavintonomy", and they will still not just say no. They would say, "Well, first off, I want to thank you for that question. And also, I want to thank you for allowing me the time to answer your question on this date and at this time. When I was born my parents called me John. When I was 15, I was thinking of changing my name to George, but realized a few years later that John was good. If I heard of that name you just mentioned, I may have considered it possibly, or I may have not, because I can not tell you how my 18 year old self would have replied to that name." Does the president have the right to order an American citizen to be killed by a drone on US soil? YES OR NO!!! (It doesn't matter if they are a threat or not, in any case, can the president kill a citizen without due process?) Disclaimer: I do believe that the gov't has ordered hits on American citizens in the past, but behind closed doors, and if the president was ever busted for ordering that hit, then he would be in trouble. It is like saying, I feel that a certain man will endanger my family at one point in the future, killing us all... so, I will take it upon myself to kill him first. We can NOT do that and the president should not be able to either!