Senators john mccain and Lindsey Graham on the senate floor talk about the filibuster. Senator rand paul, who led the filibuster, questioned the ability of drone strikes on u. S. Citizens on u. S. Soil. This is 40 minutes. Thank you, mr. President. Id like to quote from this mornings editorial in the wall street journal, entitled rand pauls drone rant. Id like read, for the edification of my colleagues, the editorial in the wall street journal this morning. A Credible Media outlet. The warm read, quote give rand paul credit for theatrical timing, as the snowstorm descended on washington, the republicans kentucky oldfashioned filibuster wednesday, filled the attention void on twitter and cable tv, if only his reasoning matched the showmanship. Shortly before noon, senator paul began talking filibuster against John Brennans nomination to lead the cia. A fact tick rarely used in the senate and was last seen in 2010. But senator paul said, quote, alarm, had to be sounded to the threat to americans from their own government. He promised ospeak, quote, until the president says, no, he will not kill you at a cafe. He meant by a military drone. He is apparently serious, though his argument is not. Senator paul had written the white house to inquire about the possibility of a drone strike against a u. S. Citizen on american soil. Attorney general eric holder replied the u. S. Hasnt, and quote, has no intention to bomb any specific territory. Drones are limited to the remotess areas. But as a hypothetical man are exmr. Holder acknowledged the president can authorize the use of lee that military force within u. S. Territory. This shocked senator paul, and invoked the constitution and miranda rights under current u. S. Policy, mr. Paul used on the floor jane fonda could have been killed bay missile during her tour of communist hanoi in 1972. A group of noncombatants sitting in public view in houston may soon be pulverized, he declared. Calm down, senator, mr. Holder is right. Even if he doesnt explain the law very well, the u. S. Government cannot randomly target american citizens on u. S. Soil or anywhere else. I repeat that. The u. S. Government cannot randomly target american citizens on u. S. Soil or anywhere else. What it can do, under the laws of war, is target an enemy combatant, at anywhere, at any time, including on u. S. Soil. This includes a u. S. Citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The president can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity, government, say, or a terrorist network like al qaeda. That has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. That does not include hanoi jane. Such a conflict exists between the u. S. And al qaeda. So, mr. Holder is right. The u. S. Could have targeted, say, u. S. Citizen anwar awlaki had he continued to live in virginia. The u. S. Killed him in yemen before he could kill more americans. But under the law, awlaki was no different than the nazis who came ashore in long island in world war ii and were captured and executed. The country needs more senators who care about liberty but if mr. Pal wants to be taken seriously the needs to do more than pulling stunts that fire up kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he is talking about. Well, mr. President , ive watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday. I saw colleagues of mine who know better, come to the floor and voice this same concern, which is totally unfounded. I must say that the use of jane fondas name does evoke certain memories with me, and i must say that she is not my favorite american. But i also believe that as odious was it was, ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with american policy, and even may demonstrate against it, is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant, is simply false. It is simply false. Now, i believe that we need to visit this whole issue of the use of drones, who uses them, whether the cia should become their own air force, what the oversight is. What the legal and political foundations for this kind of conflict needs to be reviewed. And the foundation rests mostly on design for another task, the government lawyers have interpret without public scrutiny to meet new challenges outside the surveillance context. Congress as a body has not debated or approved the mens or ends of secret warfare, secret surveillance and target strikes rather than u. S. Military detention are central to the new warfare. There are no viable plaintiffs to test the governments authorities in court in short, executive branch decisions since 2001 have led the nation to a new type of war against new enemies on a new battlefield, without enough focused national debate, deliberate congressional approval or real judiciary review. We probably need a new framework statute, akin to the National Security act of 1947, or the series of intelligence reforms made after watergate, or even the 2001 authorization of force. To define the scope of the new war the authorities and limit takingses on president ial power informs a review of the president s actions. Im quoting from an article by Jack Goldsmith in the washington post. The u. S. Needs a rule book for secret warfare. I dont think we should have any doubt there are people, both within the United States of america, and outside of it, who are members of terrorist organizations that want to repeat 9 11. All of us thank god theres not been a relead of 9 11. Most of the experts i know will say theres been a certain element of luck, but its more element a small element, but an element of luck, such as the underwear bombers and others that have prevented a devastating attack on the United States. But to somehow allege or infer that the president of the United States is going to kill somebody, like jane ton dark or someone who disagrees with the policies, is a stretch of imagination which is, frankly, ridiculous. Ridiculous. So, i dont disagree that we need more debate, more discussion, and, frankly, probably more legislation, to make sure that america does protect the rights of all of our citizens. To make sure at the same time that if someone is an enemy combatant, that the enemy combatant nowhere to hide, not in a cafe or anywhere. But to say that somehow, even though we tried to take that person to say wisconsin we would hit them in a cafe with a missile, first of all, there are no drones with hell fire missiles anywhere knee. Theres in places like yemen and afghanistan, and other places in the world. So, weve done a, i think, disservice to a lot of americans by making them believe that somehow theyre in danger from their government. Theyre not. But we are in danger from a dedicated, longstanding, easily replaceable leadership enemy that is hell bent on our destruction, and this leads us to having to do things that perhaps we havent had to do in other, more conventional wars. And i dont believe that anwar awlaki should have been protected anywhere in the world. But that doesnt mean that theyre going to take him out with a hellfire missile. It means were going to use our best intelligence to apprehend and to debrief these people so that we can gain the necessary intelligence to bring them all to justice. So, mr. President , all i can say is that i dont think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American People. We need a discussion, as i said, about exactly how we are going to address this new form of almost interminable warfare, which is very different from anything we faced in the past. But somehow to allege our government would drop a drone hellfire missile on jane fonda, that is that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about u. S. Policy to the realm of the ridiculous. Id also like to add an additional note, mr. President. About 42 of the senators im told of the members of this senate are here for six years or less. Everytime a Majority Party is in power, they become frustrated with the exercise of the minority of their rights here in the senate. And back some years ago there was going to be we were going to eliminate, when republicans this side of the aisle was the majority, we were going to eliminate the able to call for 60 votes for judges. Cop firmation of judges. We put that aside. There was another effort at the beginning of this senate to do away with 60 votes and back down to 51, which, in my view, would have destroyed the senate. A lot of us worked a group of us worked very hard for a long time to come up with some compromises that would allow the senate to move more rapidly but at the same time and efficiently but at the same time preserve 60vote majority requirement on some pieces of legislation. What we saw yesterday, what we saw yesterday, is going to give ammunition to those critics who say that the rules of the senate are being abused. I hope that my colleagues on this site of the aisle will take that into consideration. I note the prepares of the for from South Carolina. Senator from North Carolina is a lawyer, as many of our colleagues know. He has been a military lawyer in the air for reese serve for 20 years. If theres anyone in the United States senate that knows about this issue from a legal technical standpoint, i would ask it its my colleague from South Carolina. I would ask my colleague from South Carolina, there is any way that the president of the United States could just randomly attack with a drone or hellfire missile someone without that person being designated a enemy combatant. I dont think, as much as i hate to say it, that applies to jane fonda. Its been a very lively debate. This is an important issue. We should be talking about it. I welcome a reasoned discussion. But to my republican colleagues i dont remember any of you coming down here suggest that president bush was going to kill anybody with a drone. I dont even remember the harshess critics of president bush on the democratic side. They had a Drone Program back then. So what is it all of a sudden that the Drone Program has gotten every republican so spun up . What are we up to here . I think president obama has in many ways been a very thorough executive. He has overstepped and gone into the congressional arena by executive order. I think obama cair, a thousand examples of a failed presidency, but theres also some agreement. People are astonished that president obama, senator mccain, is doing many of the things that president bush did. Im not astonished. I congratulate him. For having the good judgment to understand were at war. And to my party, im a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think were at war. Not senator paul. He is a man to himself. He has the view that i dont think is a republican view. I them its a legitimately held libertarian view. You have to remember senator paul is the one senator who voted against the resolution that said the policy of the United States will not be to contain a Nuclear Capable iran. It was 901. To his credit he felt like that would be provocative and may lead to a military conflict. Hed rather have a Nuclear Capable iran than use military force, and he said so to his credit. 90 of us thought, well, wewood like not to have a military conflict with iran, but were not going to contain a Nuclear Capable iran, senator mccain, because its impossible. What would happen is if iran got a Nuclear Weapon, the Sunni Arab States would want a Nuclear Weapon, and most of us believe they would share the technology with the terrorists, that would wind up attacking israel or the United States. Its not so much a i fear a missile coming from iran. I fear if they got Nuclear Weapon or Nuclear Technology, that would give it to some terrorist organization like they gave ieds to shiites in iraq to kill americans. So we dont believe in letting them have it and trying to contain them because we believe their association with terrorism is too long and too deep, do dangerous for israel and do take rouse for us, but senator paul to his credit, was okay with that. I just disagree with him. Now, as to what he is saying about the Drone Program, before he had some doubt in his mind as to whether or not we should have killed anwar a. L. Walk can i in yemen. An american citizen, one of the military leaders in yemen, who recall yawided asan, had been involved in planning terrorist attacks against u. S. Forces. President obama was informed through the military Intelligence Community channels of anwar aulaqis existence, all the videos he made supporting gee had and killing americans, and he, as commander in chief, designated this person as combatant. Mr. President , you did what you had the authority to do and i congratulate you for making that informed decision, and the process to get on this target list is very rigorous. I think sometimes almost too rigorous. But now apparently senator paul says at it okay to kill him because we have a photo of him with an rpb on his shoulder, he moved the ball. He is saying now he wants this president to tell him that he will not use a drone to kill an american citizen setting in a cafe, having a cup of coffee. Who is not a combatant. I find the question offensive. As much as i disagree with president obama, much as i support past president s, i do not believe that question deserves an answer. Because as senator mccain said, this president is not going to use a drone against a noncombatant sitting in a cafe anywhere in the United States. Nor will future president s because if they do they will have committed an act of murder. Noncombatants under the law of war are protected. Not subject to being killed randomly. So, to suggest that the president wont answer that question somehow legitimizes that the drone prams going to result in being used against anybody in this room having a cup of coffee. To me, cheapens the debate, and is something not worthy of could i ask my colleague a question, especially on that subject. A lot of our friends, particularly senator paul and others, pride themselves on their strict adherence to the constitution and the decisions of the United StatesSupreme Court. Isnt it true that as a result of an attack in long island, during world war ii, that american citizen, among others, was captured and hung on american soil, and the United StatesSupreme Court upheld that execution because that individual was an enemy combatant. Does that establish without a doubt well, there is the facts these are combatants and no matter where they are, they are subject to the form of justice as the terrorist in world war ii was. Its been a longheld concept in american Juris Prudence that when an american citizen sides with the enemies of our nation, they can be held, captured and treated as an combatant who has mitted an committed an act of war against our country, not a common cry so in world war ii you had year. Map sack tours on long island who has been trying in germany to blow up infrastructure, some in chicago. So they had this elaborate plan to attack us. They came out of a submarine, landed in long island, and the plan was to have american citizens simple thing at the to the nazi cause sympathetic to the nazi cause, to provide them shelter and comfort. Well, the fbi broke that plot up, and they were arrested. The american citizens were tried by military commissions and they were found guilty and a couple executed there has been a case in the war on terror where an american citizen was captured in afghanistan. Our Supreme Court reaffirmed the proposition that we can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant when they align themselves with the forces against this country. This congress, right after the september 11th attacks, designated authorization to use military force against al qaeda and affiliated groups so the congress has given every president since 9 11 the authority to use military force against al american al qaeda and if aulaqi had been treated as enemy combatant if president obamas to that, would be nothing new or novel. What would be november is for us to say if an al qaeda cell was operating in in the yates United States, thats a common crime and the law doesnt apply. It would be the worse situation in the world for the congress to say the United States itself is a terrorist safe haven when it comes to legal rights. We can blow you up with drone overseas, capture you in afghanistan, hold you under the law of war, but if theres a terror cell operating in the United States, somehow youre a common criminal, well read you your miranda rights itch hope you realize there irpatriot missile batteries all over washington that could interdict an airplane coming to attack the capitol or white house or other government facilities. I hope you understand, senator mccain, there are f1s on three to five minute alert all up and down the east coast, and if theres a vessel coming into the United States, where a plane has been hijacked, or a ship, and theyre taken over a craft and are about to attack us, i hope all of us would agree, using military force in that situation is not only lawful under the authorization to use military force, its within the Inherent Authority of the commander in chief to protect us all and should not be construed as an authority to kill somebody in a cafe. It should be construed as a reasonable ability to defend the homeland against a real threat, and the question is, do you feel threatened anymore . I do. I think al qaeda is alive and w