Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I think it is an easy question to have answered, and it boggles my mind. I think the President in general, though, and other Presidents in general, hang on to their power with a tenacious grip, and they don't want to allow that there is any possibility that by saying they don't have this power, they have given up some power. I think that is a mistake for Presidents. I think it goes against what the candidate, Barack Obama, was for and the Senator, Barack Obama. I hope in the morning when they wake up they will think about what Candidate Barack Obama said in 2007 and what Senator Barack Obama once stood for as a Senator; that is, the power of the Presidency is limited and checked by the Constitution. Madam President, at this time I would like to yield for a question from the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, since we began this today, I have had no communications from the White House or the Attorney General. The only thing we have gotten indirectly was that the Attorney General was before the Judiciary Committee today and that he did seem to backtrack or acknowledge a little bit, under withering cross-examination. He was not very forthcoming in saying what we would like to hear: that they will not kill noncombatants in America. But I think that is still a possibility from them. I think his answers were not inconsistent with that. But you would think it would be a little bit easier and they would make it easier on everyone, and you would think they would want to reassure the public that they have no intention--not just they have no intention--but that they will not kill Americans.

Mr. PAUL. Yes, I think American citizens get that. But not only that, I come from a State that has two large military bases. When our soldiers go off--and when I talk to them--they talk of fighting for our Bill of Rights, they talk of fighting for our Constitution. They do not think they are going off to conquer any people. They truly believe and they honestly appraise that they are fighting for our Bill of Rights. So that is why I see this as somewhat of an insult to our soldiers, to say that and to insinuate somehow that the Bill of Rights is not so important; that our fear is going to guide us away or take us away from something so fundamental and so important. I think Americans do realize that the protections of having a jury trial are incredibly important and that assessing guilt is not always easy when you are accused of a crime. I think Americans know it is really important to try to get it right when someone is accused of a crime. So I think the American people are with us in wanting to find these answers. The Senator is right. This is not ultimately about the nomination; this is about a question that is bigger than any individual. It is about something that our country was founded upon; that is, basically, the individual rights.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we have had a good and healthy debate today. I think we have hit upon a few points. We may have even hit a couple points more than once. When we think about it and put it in perspective, so many of the battles we have up here are battles that I think the American public is sometimes disgusted with. They see a lot of things we do as petty and partisan. Sometimes I see disagreements up here that I think are completely partisan and completely petty on both sides. But I think this issue is different in the sense that this is not about this particular individual and his nomination. I have actually voted for the President's first three nominations to his Cabinet. So I have not taken a partisan position that the President cannot nominate his political appointees. I have looked carefully at the nominees. I have asked for more information. I have tried to extend debate on some of the nominees. But in the end, I voted for three out of three and many of the judges that the President has put forward, not necessarily because I agree with their politics. I do not agree with much of the President's politics. In fact, one of the few things I did agree with the President on was the idea of civil liberties, was the idea that you do not tap someone's phone without a wire, without a warrant, that you do not torture Americans, and that you did not kill Americans without due process. These are things I thought the President and I agreed on. So I am not so sure exactly, you know, where we stand with that. I actually kind of think that probably he still does agree with me, or I still agree with him. But the question is, why cannot he publicly go ahead and announce he is not going to kill noncombatants? This is a resolution we have talked about. This resolution says: ``To express the sense of the Senate against the use of drones to execute American citizens on American soil.'' Expressing the sense of the Senate against the use of drones to execute American citizens on American soil. Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate that the use of drones to execute or target American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates the constitutional due process of rights. The American people deserve a clear, concise and unequivocal public statement from the President of the United States that contains detailed legal reasoning, including but not limited to the balance between national security and due process, limits of executive power, and distinction between the treatment of citizens and noncitizens within and outside the borders of the United States. The use of lethal force against American citizens and the use of drones in the application of the lethal force within the United States territory. There is another article that I think is of interest. This is another article by Spencer Ackerman in Wired. This talks about once again the signature strikes, the idea that basically we are killing people whose names we did not know. The title of this was: ``CIA Drones Kill Large Groups Without Knowing Who They Are.'' The expansion of the CIA's undeclared drone war into the tribal areas of Pakistan required a big expansion of who can be marked for death. Once the standard for targeted killings was top-level leaders in al-Qaeda or one of its allies. That's long gone, especially as the number of people targeted at once has grown. This is the new standard, according to a blockbuster piece in the Wall Street Journal: ``Men believed to be militants associated with terrorist groups, but whose identities aren't always known.'' [may be targeted.] The CIA is now killing people without knowing who they are, on suspicion of association with terrorist groups. The article does not define the standards, [but the standards are said to be] ``suspicion'' and ``association.'' While this is overseas, it kind of gets to the point we have been talking about: What is the standard that will be used in America? If we are to have drone strikes in America, what is the standard we will use? Is it a standard that says you have to be suspicious, or that you have to be associated? Strikes targeting those people, usually groups of such people, are what we call signature strikes. The bulk of the CIA's drone strikes are signature strikes now, which is a remarkable thing. So what we are talking about--that is one of the reasons why we are concerned here--is that if the President claims he can do strikes in America, and the bulk of the current strikes overseas are signature strikes, would it not be worrisome that we could kill people in America without evening knowing their name? The bulk of CIA's drone strikes now are ``signature'' strikes. It was written in the Wall Street Journal in an article by Adam Entous, Siobhan Gorman, and Julian Barnes. And the ``bulk'' really means the bulk. The Journal reports that the growth in clusters of people targeted by the CIA has required the agency to tell its Pakistani counterparts about mass attacks. We are talking about pretty significant attacks here. They are only notifying them when they are going to kill more than 20 at a time. Determining who is the target is not a question of intelligence collection. The cameras on the CIA fleet of Predators and Reapers work just fine. It is a question of intelligence analysis, interpreting the imagery collected from the drones, from the spies and spotters below, to understand who is a terrorist and who, say, drops off the terrorist's laundry. Admittedly in a war with a shadowy enemy, it can be difficult to distinguish between the two. So the question is, is this the kind of standard we will use in the United States? Will we use a standard where people do not have to be named? We do not know. The President has indicated his drone strikes in America will have different rules than his drone strikes outside of America. But we have heard no rules on what those drone strikes will be. So we have drone strikes inside and outside. They are going to have different rules. But we already know that in a large percentage of the drone strikes overseas we are not naming the person. Is that going to be the standard? We also know we have targeted people for sympathizing with the enemy. We talked about that before. In the 1960s, we had many people who sympathized with North Vietnam. Many people will remember Jane Fonda swiveling herself around in a North Vietnamese artillery and thinking, gleefully, that she was just right at home with the North Vietnamese. I am not a great fan of Jane Fonda. I am really not too interested in putting her on a drone kill list either. We have had many people who have dissented in our country. We have had people in our country who have been against the Afghan war, against the Iraq war. I was opposed to the Iraq war. There have been people against the government on occasion. What are the criteria for who will be killed? Does the fifth amendment apply? Will the list be secret or not secret? Can you kill noncombatants? And people say, well, the President would never kill noncombatants. The problem is, is that is who we are killing overseas. We are alleging that they may be conspiring someday to be combatants or they might have been yesterday. But are we going to take that same kind of standard and use it in America? Are we going to have a standard that if you are on your iPad typing an email in a cafe that you can be targeted in a drone strike? These are not questions that are inconsequential. These are questions that should be known. These are questions that should be public. These are questions that should be discussed in Congress. In fact, we should not be asking him for drone memos, we should be giving him drone memos. We should not be asking him how is he going to run the drone program, we should be telling him how he is to run the drone program. That is our authority. We have abdicated our authority. We do not do what we are supposed to. We are supposed to be the checks and balances. But we have let the President make those decisions because we have largely abdicated our responsibility. In this Spencer Ackerman story from Wired, he talks about and goes on to say: Fundamentally, though, it is a question of policy, whether it is acceptable for the CIA to kill someone without fully knowing if he is the bombsmith or the laundry guy. The Journal reports: The CIA's willingness to strike without such knowledge, sanctioned in full by President Barack Obama, is causing problems for the State Department and the military. As we have written this week, the high volume of drone attacks in Pakistani tribal areas contributes to Pakistani intransigence on another issue of huge importance to the United States, convincing Pakistan to deliver the insurgent groups it sponsors to peace talks aimed at ending the Afghan war. The drones do not cause that intransigence. Pakistani leaders, after all, cooperate with the drones and exploit popular anti-American sentiment to shake down Washington. The strikes become cards for Pakistan to play, however cynically. I think this is quite true of Pakistan. They play both sides to the middle. They play both sides to get more money from us. I think they have been complicit in the drone attacks, and then they complain about them publicly. They have two faces, one to their people, and one privately to us. But the question is, have we gotten involved more in Pakistan than getting al-Qaida leaders, and have we gotten more involved with a war in Pakistan that involves people who want to be free of their central government? Ultimately, we as a country need to figure out how to end the war. We have had the war in Afghanistan for 12 years now. The war basically has authorized a worldwide war. Not only am I worried about the perpetual nature of the war, I am also worried that there are no geographic limitations to the war. But I am particularly concerned, and what today has all been about, I am worried that they say the United States is the battlefield now. My side, their side, the President, everybody thinks that America is the battlefield. The problem is, they all think you do not get due process in a battlefield. Largely they are correct. When you are overseas in a battlefield, it is hard to have due process. We are not going to ask for Miranda rights before we shoot people in battle. But America is different. So one of the most important things I hope that will come from today is people will say and people will listen: How do we end the war in Iraq? How do we end the war in Afghanistan? I got a vote. I tried to end the Iraq war 2 years after it ended, by taking away the authorization of use of force. I still could not get that voted on. It is even more important not only to end the war in Iraq, but ultimately to end the war in Afghanistan. Because the war in Afghanistan, the use of authorization of force is used to create a worldwide war without limitations, to create a war that some say the battlefield is here at home. This battlefield being here at home means you do not get due process at home. There have been Members of the Senate stand up and say, when they ask you for a lawyer, you tell them to shut up. Is that the kind of due process we want in our country? Is that what we are moving toward? So the questions we are asking here are important questions. These questions are: Does the Bill of Rights apply? Can they have exceptions to the Bill of Rights? One of the articles from the National Review recently was by Kevin Williams. We got into this a little bit earlier. I thought it was an important article because it talked about what our concern is is about what standard we will use. What will be the standard for how we kill Americans in America? He talked a little bit about how his belief is that al-Awlaki was targeted mainly as a propagandist. An interesting thing about al-Awlaki is that before he was targeted, he was actually invited to the Pentagon. We considered him to be a moderate Islamist for a while. We invited him to the Pentagon. I think he actually gave and said prayers in the Capitol at one point. The question is if we made a mistake the first time about whether he was our friend--and I think we did--could you make a mistake on the other end? The question is, if governments are to decide who are sympathizers and people who are politicians, with no checks or balances, are to decide who is a sympathizer, is there a danger that people who have political dissent could be included in this? The way Williamson describes al-Awlaki was that he was first and foremost an al-Qaida propagandist. He was a preacher and a blogger who first began to provoke United States authorities through the online bile which earned him the faintly ridiculous sobriquet the bin Laden of the Internet. Was he an active participant in planning acts of terrorism against the United States? The FBI did not think so, at least in the wake of 9/ 11 attacks. The Bureau interviewed him four times and concluded he was not involved. The Defense Department famously invited him to dine at the Pentagon as part of the Islamic outreach efforts, and in 2002 he was conducting prayers in the U.S. Capitol. Throughout the following years, al-Awlaki became a sort of al-Qaida gadfly, dangerous principally because he was fluent in English and, therefore, a more effective propagandist. It was not until the first Obama administration that al-Awlaki was promoted by United States authorities from propagandist to operations man. You may remember the context. The Obama administration had been planning to try 9/11 conspirators in New York City when the country was thrown into a panic by the machinations of the would-be underpants bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The Obama administration, in an interesting about-face--whereas it had been planning to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York and his coconspirators there, definitively turning our back on Guantanamo-- turned around and made a decision that it couldn't do it in New York. Al-Awlaki was a part of this. He was a propagandist and part of this. They said Abdulmutallab actually sought out al-Awlaki in Yemen and al- Awlaki had blessed his bomb plot and even introduced him to a bombmaker. This, according to the Obama administration, is what justified treating al-Awlaki as a man at arms earning him a place on the national secret hit list. Williamson asked this question: If sympathizing with our enemies and propagandizing on their behalf is the equivalent to making war on the country, then the Johnson and Nixon administrations should have bombed every elite college campus in the country during the 1960s. These are his words, not mine. He goes on: And as satisfying as putting Jane Fonda on a kill list might have been, I do not think that our understanding of the law would encourage such a thing, even though she did give priceless aid to the communist aggressors in Vietnam. Students in Ann Arbor, MI, were actively and openly raising funds for the Vietcong throughout the war. Would it have been proper to put them on kill lists? I don't know. Williamson said: I do not think that it would. There is a difference between sympathizing with our enemies and taking up arms against the country. They aren't the same thing. We have to ask ourselves, what is the standard? Could political dissent be part of the standard for drone strikes? You say, well, that is ridiculous. We have listed people already on Web sites and said they were at risk for terrorism for their political beliefs. The Fusion Center in Missouri listed people who were of pro- life origin and listed people who believed in secure borders for immigration. They listed people who were supporters of third-party candidates, the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party. These people were listed in a mailing sent out to all the police in the State to be aware of these people. Be aware of people who have bumper stickers on their cars supporting these people. That, to me, sounds dangerously close to having a standard where the standard is sympathy not for your enemies but sympathy for unpopular ideas or ideas that aren't popular with the government. That concerns me. It concerns whether we could have in our country a standard that is less than the Constitution. The Constitution is a standard where I can't imagine we would want to give up on this standard, or any President could assert a standard would not be the Constitution. There was an article in Human Rights First which was published in December of 2012. It begins with this prefacing statement: We are establishing precedents that other nations may follow, and not all of those nations may--and not all of them will be nations that share our interests or the premium we put on protecting human life, including citizens. This was a statement by John Brennan. It is a statement that actually carries some weight and should be thought through. This is the reason why I say this filibuster is not so much about Brennan as it is about a constitutional principle. The Obama administration has dramatically escalated targeted killing by drones as the central feature of counterterrorism response. Mr. President, at this time I have a unanimous consent request. I wish to read it into the Record. With this unanimous consent request, I would emphasize that this would be ending the debate and allowing a vote on Brennan. Part of this unanimous consent request would be the establishment of a vote on this resolution as well as setting a vote up on the confirmation of John Brennan to be CIA Director. The resolution states: Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate that: 1. The use of drones to execute, or to target, American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates the constitutional due process rights of citizens. That is the most important clause of that. I think it is important for the American people to know that apparently the other side is going to object. Object. It is important to know the majority party here in the Senate, the party of the President, is going to object to this statement being voted on. They may still vote against it if they wish, but they are going to object, I understand, to having a vote on this statement. The use of drones to execute a target, American citizens on American soil, who pose no imminent threat, clearly violates the constitutional due process rights of citizens. What we are talking about is a resolution that says what we have been trying to get the President to say: You can't kill noncombatants. You can't kill people in a cafe in Seattle. That is what we are asking. It is blatantly unconstitutional to kill noncombatants. I can't understand why we couldn't get a resolution, particularly because I am willing to, with this resolution, move forward and let the vote occur on Brennan. The second part of the resolution is: The American people deserve a clear, concise, and unequivocal public statement from the President of the United States that contains detailed legal reasoning, including but not limited to the balance between national security and due process, limits of executive power and distinction between treatments of citizens and noncitizens within and outside the borders of the United States, the use of lethal force against American citizens, and the use of drones in the application of lethal force within the United States territory. Basically, the second part of the resolution asked, basically, we do our job and ask the President to let us know what is going on with the program. If there is an objection to this, it would be an objection to, No. 1, killing citizens who are noncombatants and, No. 2, to giving us a report on what the program will actually entail. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the two leaders tomorrow, the Senate vote on this resolution as I just read it, and with the addition to it they then turn to the Brennan nomination or be allowed to proceed to a vote.

Mr. PAUL. Without relinquishing the floor, I will yield for a question.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, a lot of the process by which we are getting this information wouldn't have happened without the Senator from Oregon as well as the senior Senator from Georgia both working together to get information. It is the way the system ought to be working. One of the good things about the body is both Republicans and Democrats working together to get information from--not necessarily adversarial but in a way adversarial--another branch of government. We are a branch of government, but it is not partisan against partisan, it is bipartisan working for the power of the checks and balances to try to ensure a leveling. I thank the Senator from Oregon for helping to get the information to make this a much fuller debate. Without yielding the floor, I will entertain a question from the Senator from Florida.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for coming to the floor and being a champion for the Bill of Rights. We get a lot of grief in Washington about a lack of civility--people yelling and screaming at each other. In my dealings with Senator Wyden--who is on the other side of the aisle--I think it is evident that people can be from different perspectives, find common ground, and try to get to a point which is not a partisan point. I have tried to make it not so much about red as it is about principles. I voted for two or three of the President's nominations, and I think he deserves some latitude with his political nominees. I think the Senator from Oregon said it well when he said we have use of authorization of force in Afghanistan. Most people think that was going toward Afghanistan. It has been so broadly interpreted that it means worldwide war basically forever, and that is sort of why we get into some of these problems. Not only is it worldwide, which is a big debate in and of itself, worldwide means at home too. The battlefield is here. I agree with the Senator from Oregon that Brennan was very forthright. It was a little bit onerous getting the response, but once we got the response, it was exactly what was appropriate. He said he would obey the law, and the law was very clear: The CIA does not operate in the United States. The problem is not with his response but that the Department of Defense is the one directing the drone programs and it doesn't answer the final question. As far as Holder's response, if it would have been written as the Senator from Oregon states it, there probably wouldn't be much of a problem. I think maybe recounting the letter gives it a little more strength than the letter actually possesses in its own words. If he were to say we were ruling out all strikes other than extraordinary strikes, that would actually be a pretty good letter. Instead he says he can imagine this under certain circumstances, and he lists a couple of circumstances. The interesting thing is that a lot of us agree that in a situation such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11--probably the Senator from Oregon and probably me--we can repel a military attack. The reason we asked the next question, and the reason I am concerned about the next question--and I have only seen the unclassified version of these--but the unclassified versions of the drone attacks indicate that a significant amount of them are not killing people with a weapon. People like to talk about taking up arms. Well, a lot of people are not carrying around arms. It doesn't make them good people, but they are not carrying around arms. They are not actively shooting our soldiers or us. At the particular time they kill them, they look like noncombatants. If we have somebody sitting in a cafe in our country-- even if it is a bad person--most of us would probably rather arrest that person. If they were arrested, one, they would get the due process of our country; and two, if they were bad people, we might actually get information from them. So I wish to see a little bit better wording. The last thing I would say--and I would appreciate hearing the Senator's response--is the Attorney General was in the Judiciary Committee this morning. He was asked a bunch of questions on this. I looked through the transcript of a couple of them and it is still like pulling teeth. He was asked four times: Do you think it is constitutional to kill someone in a cafe in Seattle or Houston or Louisville? He kept saying it wasn't appropriate, but language is important when we are talking about this. Appropriate is not strong enough. It is sort of like the President is saying: I have no intention. We want him to say he won't, rather than not having intention. He didn't quite put it together in his response, but in his response--combined with the questioning--we can get the opinion that maybe he thinks it is not constitutional to kill noncombatants having dinner. Wouldn't it be easier if they just said that? At this point, I would entertain a question without yielding the floor.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I think what Travis's letter at the Alamo talks about is that there are things bigger than the individual. At the time he wrote that, I don't think they had much hope of surviving, and he died at the Alamo, as well as other volunteers, some from my State of Kentucky. But there was an issue bigger to them at the time, that they saw as bigger than the issue of the individual. I think that is what this debate is about. This is not really about the person of John Brennan. This really is not about the person of Barack Obama. This is about the body of the Constitution, it is about our respect for it, and it is about whether we will hold these principles so dear and we will hold these principles so high that we are willing to try to enjoin a debate, to try to get both sides to talk about this and to try to admit it, because we don't want innocent people to be killed in America. We want to have the process that has protected our freedoms for a couple of hundred years now to remain in place, and we are unwilling to diminish that simply because of fear. FDR said, ``There is nothing to fear but fear itself.'' I think we should also say that we should not let fear be so great that we allow the loss of our freedoms. I think that is where we are, that sometimes terrorists are everywhere and they are trying to attack us, but we need to remember that it is our freedom that is precious, and we need to try to do everything we can to uphold that. At this time, I would entertain a question, without yielding the floor, from the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I would like to say that I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Texas. If the filibuster goes on long enough, we would like to hear a recitation of William Barrett Travis's last words at the Alamo. We had to memorize that as a kid, and I am afraid my memory has gone a little dusty. But the Senator is younger and may remember that for us. The issue at hand is an issue that goes beyond party politics. It goes beyond nominations. It goes beyond the President is a Democrat and I am a Republican. I voted for three of the President's nominations, much to the chagrin and much to the criticism of some on my side. But I have done so because I think the President does have some prerogatives--that is just my personal viewpoint--on choosing appointees. This is a political appointee, but I do not consider this debate to be about the appointee. I think this debate is more about a constitutional issue, and I think it rises to a level above the individual and it is something to which we need to draw attention and about which we need to have a good healthy discussion in our country. I don't think it has to be a bitter partisan battle. I have met the President personally. I have flown on Air Force One with him. I respect him, I respect the office. I think he and I could have a reasonable conversation on this issue. In fact, I think if he were here today, he might actually agree with much of what I am saying. What I am disappointed in--and I do not know if it is the muddle of a large government and not getting a message forward, but what I am disappointed in is that it is so hard to get him to agree with what I think he should already and probably already agrees with. But when we are talking about doing something so different, when we are talking about changing the way we adjudicate guilt, changing the way we decide someone's life or death, it is too important to just say: Oh, Mr. President, go ahead and do it. As long as you tell me you have no intent of breaking the law or no intent to kill Americans, that is enough. It just simply is not enough. It is not enough to say: I have not done it yet. I do not intend to kill anybody, but I might. He came up with some circumstances where he might use the drone strikes in America. Then, in the cross-examination of Senator Cruz in the committee, we have gotten him to admit--under duress, I think, but to admit that they are not talking about people in a cafe. Some might say he has never mentioned people in a cafe. The reason it comes up, of people not involved in combat, is that a lot of the people who have been the victims or have been killed by these drone strikes were not involved in combat when they were killed. They were riding in cars, walking down the street, traveling in caravans. I am not saying they are good people. I am just saying, regarding the standard for whom we kill overseas, we have to ask the question, and I don't think we are doing our job if we do not ask the President: Are you going to use the same criteria for how you kill people overseas? Is that the same criteria over here? And it should not be: I will tell you later. It shouldn't be, I don't intend to do it and I probably won't, but I might. That is just not enough. We are talking about basic protections that we fought our Revolution over and really, in a way, when I see the wars that we have gone to-- and not every war has been perfectly justified or that we should have, but when our soldiers fight, I see them fighting for the Bill of Rights, and I think they say that too. No matter where they are around the world, I see them fighting for the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. But if we are giving that up, if we are not going to adhere to the fifth amendment, it takes the wind out of the sails. Can you imagine being a soldier in Afghanistan or Iraq or in far- flung places around the world and you are told you were fighting for the Bill of Rights minus the fifth amendment? Or when we say we are going to indefinitely detain people, we are going to fight for the Bill of Rights minus the sixth amendment? It is pretty important. These things are what we are fighting for, so we really should at least have a robust debate over the magnitude of these changes, over how these will be set up, over exactly what will happen, how this process is going to work. I am just saying that ``I am not intending to do so'' is not enough. Mr. President, I, without yielding the floor, would like to allow a question from the Senator from Texas.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I think it is an excellent question and really gets to the root of the whole problem we are talking about because we are talking about people who may not all be good people. They may be bad people and they may be plotting to do something bad to America, and they may be in a cafe. So there may be all kinds of reasons to arrest and punish them, but there may be all kinds of reasons to try to get more information from them. Particularly if they are not involved in combat, it is hard to imagine why you would want to kill them. If they are not involved in combat, why not capture them and try to get some useful information out of them? So it is a little bit difficult to understand why the President wouldn't say what is obvious: Why would we want to kill noncombatants in America? The reason we keep asking the question is, of the drone strikes overseas--which we are not privy to all of the details because some of it is classified. But the details that have been in the press are that a lot of these people being killed overseas are not in combat. So the real question is, If you are going to take this drone strike overseas and it has no geographic limitations, and you are bringing it home to America, does the President not think it is incumbent upon him to say: Well, yes, we are bringing it home, but we are not going to kill noncombatants? What an important question. I think the Senator has phrased it appropriately and I would anticipate or respect any other response he would like to give.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I think the question is well put. The first aspect of the question is, What is the President thinking? Why would the President not respond to us? Why would the President not answer a pretty easy question and say that noncombatants in the United States will not be killed with drones? I think the reason is complicated--and it is conjecture because I can't get in his mind. But I would say it is sort of a contagion or an infection that affects Republicans and Democrats when they get into the White House. They see the power the Presidency has. It is enormous. They see themselves as good people, and they say: I can't give up any power because I am going to do good with that power. The problem they don't see is that the power itself is intoxicating, and the power someday may be in the hands of someone else who is less inclined to use it in a good way. I think that is why the power grows and grows, because everybody believes themselves to be doing the right thing. With regard to exactly what would happen in the situation when there is not an imminent threat, it boggles the mind when we can't answer that question. And I don't have a good understanding as to why exactly we can't get a response. I would yield for a response from the Senator from Texas.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, without relinquishing the floor, I yield to the Senator from Texas for a question.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I think it is very reasonable. It is more important than just the nomination of one individual. When we are talking about whether the Bill of Rights is going to be changed, when we are talking about whether you will have the due process to be tried in a court, or whether you could be killed-- summarily executed without a trial--that is an important change in the history of our country. The Senator's response also made me think of something else. Another way to resolve this, where we could conclude this debate and get on to the nomination, would be for the majority party to come forward with a resolution that says: You know what. We are not going to kill noncombatants in America with drone strikes; we are not going to use the military; we are going to reaffirm the law. So there is a resolution that both parties could come forward--and it would be a wonderful resolution to this process to say: The Senate goes on record in a bipartisan fashion as saying we are not going to overturn the fifth amendment. If you are an American and you live in America, you will not be killed without being accused of a crime, tried by a jury, and convicted by a jury. I think that would be a reasonable resolution to this, and I would entertain it if the other side were interested.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia is correct. I also, while he is on the floor, want to thank him for getting some of this information to come forward. Because it has been a very onerous task, and without his leadership on the Intelligence Committee, as well as Republicans and Democrats asking for more information, we would not have gotten anywhere. With that input, we have been able to get some answers. The answers have not all been good. Brennan has answered, with the appropriate answer: The CIA does not work within the United States. That should be pretty obvious because everybody knows that and that is the law. The problem is, it does not answer the final question because the drone program is under the Department of Defense, and if we are going to bring that home to America, I think the Intelligence Committee, as well as the whole body, ought to be not just waiting for the President to tell us how he is going to use it in America. We have civil law in America and we ought to be part of that process. But I do not think we can allow it to go on without our input.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the analogy that the Senator from Kansas brings up I think is appropriate. We have had rules on the books since the Civil War saying the military doesn't act in our country. So it is not just a drone; it is any sort of law enforcement in the United States. We recognize that. We respect our soldiers. We are proud of our soldiers. But we have limited their sphere to the sphere of war. Within the United States, for our security we have the police and we have the FBI. It is because the rules of engagement are different. It is different being a soldier. It is a tough job being a soldier. But it is just not the same on the streets of Wichita or the streets of Bowling Green, KY. So we have different rules and we have made it different. But the Senator is right. I think people would understand that it would be wrong for a military officer to shoot someone on the streets in America. It is prohibited for a good reason; not because our soldiers are bad people, but it is because there are different rules for soldiers. That is what is most troubling about many of these people who say, oh, Wichita is the battlefield. And if it is the battlefield, they don't understand why the military can't act in Wichita or Houston or Bowling Green, KY. So it does delve into the problem that we have to debate: Is there a limitation to where the battlefield is? If the Senator has another question, I would yield for a question without yielding the floor.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I think the analogy is apt. The difference is a recess appointment you get to make your appeal to a court while still living, which makes a big difference. In the case of the recess appointments, the President decided he could determine when the legislative branch was in session or out of session. So you have the same sort of conflict again. The President has a sphere and we have a sphere, but now he is saying he controls our sphere also; that he can tell us when we are in session or out of session, and he can basically do what he wishes. The Supreme Court rebuked him pretty sternly. So I agree with the Senator from Kansas. There is a great deal of similarity between the two because it is, once again, the executive branch or the President acting as if the checks and balances between the Legislative and the executive branches don't exist; that he basically made the decision for us that he has decided we are in recess. But the Senator is correct, the Supreme Court gave him a pretty stern rebuke and said that would be unconstitutional.

Mr. PAUL. Yes, I agree with the comments of the Senator from Utah. The whole problem is that if the President says my plan has due process, that would be sort of like me saying I have passed my law, and I think it is constitutional. Well, the same branch of government doesn't get to judge whether it is constitutional. That is the whole idea of the checks and balances. We pass a law in the Senate and the Supreme Court can rule on whether it is constitutional. So the President gets to decide that he is going to abrogate the fifth amendment or abbreviate the fifth amendment or do certain things, and then he says: Oh, I am really not because the way I interpret it, I am applying the fifth amendment to my process. Well, he can't do that. He can't be judge, jury, executioner, and Supreme Court all rolled into one. That is an arrogation of power we cannot allow. Mr. President, at this time I would like to entertain comments or a question from the Senator from Kansas without yielding the floor, if I may.

Mr. PAUL. Well, Mr. President, this is what makes this debate so important. This debate is about the fundamental rights that we--most of us, or many of us--believe derive from our Creator and that it is important we not give up on these; that we not allow a majority vote or one branch of government to say we have now decided you don't get all these rights anymore. Our Founders really wanted to make it difficult to change things, to take away our rights. So this is an important battle and one in which I think we should engage because the President needs to be more forthcoming. The President needs to let us know what his plans are, if he is going to overrule the fifth amendment and if the Attorney General is going to decide when the fifth amendment applies. That is a pretty important distinction and change from the history of our country. Mr. President, at this time I would like to ask for any comments, without yielding the floor, from the Senator from Utah.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I am aware of no legal precedent for taking the life of an American without the fifth amendment or due process. What is troubling, though, is that Attorney General Eric Holder is on record as actually arguing that the fifth amendment right to due process is to be determined and is to be applicable when determined solely by the executive branch. I would appreciate the comments and opinions of the Senator from Texas on the idea that the executive branch gets to determine when the Bill of Rights applies.

Mr. PAUL. Well, Mr. President, the response is a little bit troubling; that it took so much work and so much effort of cross- examination to finally get an answer. I will note, in his final answer, I don't ever see the words ``constitutional'' or ``unconstitutional.'' He is responding to Senator Cruz's word of ``constitutional'' when he says: Let it be clear and translate my ``appropriate'' to ``no.'' I thought I was saying no. All right. No. Well, words do make a difference, and I would feel a little more comfortable if we would get in writing a letter that says he doesn't believe killing people not actively engaged in combat with drones in America, on American soil, is constitutional. That sure would have short-circuited and saved quite a bit of time. I will say, though, that I will believe a little more of the sincerity of the President and of the Attorney General if we get a public endorsement of the bill that says drones can't be used except under imminent threat, and define that as an imminent threat where you actually have a lethal attack underway. If we could get to that, I think this is something that both parties ought to be able to unite by. It is such a basic principle, I can't imagine we couldn't unite by this. And it would have gone a long way to getting these answers. But what still disappoints me about the whole thing is that it takes so much work to get people to say they are going to obey the law. It takes so much work to get the administration to admit they will adhere to the Constitution. This should be a much simpler process. I commend the Senator from Texas for not letting go and for trying to get this information. I would welcome any more comments that he has.

Mr. PAUL. As long as I do not yield the floor.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I am quite surprised, although I guess I shouldn't be, that we don't get direct responses. It is a pretty direct question. It is the question I have been asking all morning. It is the question I have been asking for a month and a half. I am talking about situations where you have a noncombatant, someone not posing an imminent threat, who they think make may someday pose an imminent threat because that is what we are doing overseas. If that is the standard overseas, I am asking is that going to be the standard here? It amazes me. Part of the reason we are here today in the midst of a filibuster is because they won't answer the question directly. I applaud the attempts to try to get a more specific question. I am not terribly surprised we have had trouble getting a direct answer.

Mr. PAUL. Yes, I am aware of that. I think we have a transcript of some of the conversation from this morning.

Mr. PAUL. Yes.

Mr. PAUL. I won't yield the floor, but I will allow the Senator to make comments.