Efforts by Senate Democrats to win a speedy confirmation of John Brennan as CIA director have run into a snag. Republican Sen. Rand Paul has begun what he calls a filibuster of Brennan's nomination. (March 6) 
 
 Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks on the Senate floor on Wednesday. (Photo: Video screen grab of Senate television via AP) Story Highlights Paul says concern over Brennan is not partisan 
 
 Reid said vote on Brennan could come Thursday 
 
 White House provided classified documents about drone strikes 
 
 WASHINGTON — John Brennan's nomination to lead the CIA was delayed Wednesday by a filibuster led by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., about concerns about the legality of drone strikes against U.S. citizens. 
 
 "I'm going to speak as long as I can to draw attention to something I find very disturbing," said Paul, who started speaking around 11:45 a.m. 
 
 What started in the morning as a solo effort turned into a multi-senator debate that included one Democrat, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and at least seven Republicans questioning the constitutionality of drone strikes on U.S. citizens at home and abroad. 
 
 MORE: 5 longest filibusters in Senate history 
 
 "No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found guilty of a crime by a court," Paul said. "How can you kill someone without going to a judge, or a jury?" 
 
 The federal government has not conducted such operations and doesn't plan to, Attorney General Eric Holder told Paul in a March 4 letter. But, Holder added, it was possible President Obama could be forced by an "extraordinary circumstance" to kill citizens inside the United States, and he cited the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks as examples. 
 
 During his filibuster, Paul said the fuzziness of such language created a slippery slope that could lead to the targeting of citizens who merely have different opinions about policies than the president. 
 
 "You can't be judge, jury and executioner all in one," Paul said. 
 
 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., took the floor around 4:30 p.m. to say any vote to end debate on Brennan's nomination or to approve him as CIA director would happen Thursday. 
 
 Paul said during his filibuster that his opposition was not about Brennan himself, but the constitutional issues involved. "We really just want [Obama] to say he won't" attack noncombatants on U.S. soil. 
 
 Democrats who lead the Senate could move Brennan's nomination to a vote, Paul said, if they would introduce a resolution saying they would not advocate the killing of noncombatants with drone strikes. 
 
 Wyden, a longtime critic of excessive government intelligence and surveillance programs, said "the senator from Kentucky has made a number of important points." 
 
 There are times, Wyden said, when a U.S. citizen who takes up arms against the United States while overseas can be attacked by a drone. But the executive branch of government, he said, should not be allowed to "conduct such a far-reaching policy without scrutiny." 
 
 It's not a partisan issue, Paul said, noting that he voted to support the nominations of John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, the secretaries of State and Defense. 
 
 Paul and other senators had delayed a full Senate vote on Brennan's nomination until they received more information about the drone program. The White House provided Justice Department documents on the drone program to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday. 
 
 MORE: Senate intelligence panel approves Brennan to head CIA 
 
 The committee then voted 12-3 to approve Brennan's nomination. 
 
 Brennan, the White House's top counterterrorism adviser, was closely linked to the drone program. The administration has used the unmanned aircraft to regularly target suspected terrorists in the Middle East and Africa. 
 
 In 2011, U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike in Yemen, raising questions about the use of the armed drones on American citizens. 
 
 Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina had used Brennan's nomination to air concerns about the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. 
 
 McCain and Graham said they would oppose Brennan unless they got classified documents detailing the administration's actions immediately following the attack, the Associated Press reported. 
 
 The White House has said it provided more documents to lawmakers about that attack. 
 
 Before coming to the White House, Brennan served 25 years in the CIA. ||||| Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), said he would speak for “a few hours” on Wednesday in opposition to John Brennan’s nomination as head of the CIA. “A few hours” turned into 13 hours, close to breaking a filibuster record. (Nicki Demarco/The Washington Post) 
 
 Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), said he would speak for “a few hours” on Wednesday in opposition to John Brennan’s nomination as head of the CIA. “A few hours” turned into 13 hours, close to breaking a filibuster record. (Nicki Demarco/The Washington Post) 
 
 Rand Paul, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Kentucky. 
 
 If I had planned to speak for 13 hours when I took the Senate floor Wednesday, I would’ve worn more comfortable shoes. I started my filibuster with the words, “I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no longer speak” — and I meant it. 
 
 I wanted to sound an alarm bell from coast to coast. I wanted everybody to know that our Constitution is precious and that no American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime. As Americans, we have fought long and hard for the Bill of Rights. The idea that no person shall be held without due process, and that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted, is a founding American principle and a basic right. 
 
 My official starting time was 11:47 a.m. on Wednesday, March 6, 2013. 
 
 I had a large binder of materials to help me get through my points, but although I sometimes read an op-ed or prepared remarks in between my thoughts, most of my filibuster was off the top of my head and straight from my heart. From 1 to 2 p.m., I barely looked at my notes. I wanted to make sure that I touched every point and fully explained why I was demanding more information from the White House. 
 
 Just before 3 p.m., Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) came to the Senate floor to help out. Under Senate rules, I could not yield the floor or my filibuster would end, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could have shut me down. The only way for me to continue and allow Sens. Lee and Cruz to speak was to yield the floor for questions. 
 
 Their presence gave me strength and inspiration. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) also arrived to help. Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the only Democrat who came to my defense, explained how we have worked together to demand more information from the White House about the rules for drone strikes. At about 4:30 p.m., Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) joined. I was flagging for a while, but these senators kept me going. 
 
 Sen. Reid came to the Senate floor to ask me when I would be done so he could schedule a vote. But I wasn’t ready to yield. I felt I had a lot more explaining to do. 
 
 At about 6:30 p.m., something extraordinary happened. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who has been recovering from a stroke, came to the floor to give me something. I was not allowed to drink anything but water or eat anything but the candy left in our Senate desks. But he brought me an apple and a thermos full of tea — the same sustenance Jimmy Stewart brought to the Senate floor in the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” That was a moment I will never forget. 
 
 Sen. Cruz came to the floor again just before 7:30 p.m. and said, “Given that the Senate rules do not allow for the use of cellular phones on the floor of the Senate, I feel quite confident that the senator from Kentucky is not aware of the Twitter-verse that has been exploding.” 
 
 I had little idea of what was going on. I was allowed only to talk and listen to questions. As I started to walk around the Senate chamber to loosen up my legs, I was energized by the responses on Twitter. Sen. Cruz really lifted my spirits when he read the tweets. 
 
 Then something unexpected happened. House conservatives started appearing in the back of the chamber to show their support. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), who stayed for five hours, offered me his boots when I complained that I had not worn my most comfortable shoes. My good friend Rep. Thomas Massie from Kentucky came over. And then came the conservative cavalry of Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), Doug LaMalfa (Calif.), Garland “Andy” Barr (Ky.), Trey Radel (Fla.), Michael Burgess (Tex.), Jim Bridenstine (Okla.), Raul R. Labrador (Idaho), Keith Rothfus (Pa.), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Steve Daines (Mont.), Bill Huizenga (Mich.), Richard Hudson (N.C.) and David Schweikert (Ariz.). 
 
 Over the evening I had the support of Republican Sens. John Barrasso (Wyo.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), John Cornyn (Tex.), John Thune (S.D.), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.). And Sens. Cruz, Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) used the opportunity to make their first speaking appearances on the Senate floor. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) came at the end to speak, but after midnight, I had said enough. 
 
 By the end of the night, I was tired and my voice was cracking. I ended by saying, “The cause here is one that I think is important enough to have gone through this procedure.” I talked about the idea of compromise, but said that “you don’t get half of the Fifth Amendment.” I argued that we need more extended debates. And finally, at 12:40 a.m., I yielded the floor. 
 
 On Thursday, the Senate confirmed John Brennanas director of the CIA. But this debate isn’t over. 
 
 The Senate has the power to restrain the executive branch — and my filibuster was the beginning of the fight to restore a healthy balance of powers. The president still needs to definitively say that the United States will not kill American noncombatants. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment applies to all Americans; there are no exceptions. 
 
 The outpouring of support for my filibuster has been overwhelming and heartening. My office has fielded thousands of calls. Millions have followed this debate on TV, Twitter and Facebook. On Thursday, the White House produced another letter explaining its position on drone strikes. But the administration took too long, and parsed too many words and phrases, to instill confidence in its willingness or ability to protect our liberty. 
 
 I hope my efforts help spur a national debate about the limits of executive power and the scope of every American’s natural right to be free. “Due process” is not just a phrase that can be ignored at the whim of the president; it is a right that belongs to every citizen in this great nation. 
 
 I believe the support I received this past week shows that Americans are looking for someone to really stand up and fight for them. And I’m prepared to do just that. 
 
 outlook@washpost.com 
 
 More oversight and disclosure on drones 
 
 Rand Paul’s filibuster: An old tactic packs new power in digital age 
 
 Read more from Outlook, friend us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter. ||||| Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky performed a national service by filibustering the nomination of John O. Brennan to lead the Central Intelligence Agency — an old-fashioned, talk-’til-you-drop filibuster at that. 
 
 Mr. Brennan’s qualifications for the position are not at issue here. He is a dedicated public servant, and, as former CIA station chief in Riyadh, one with important experience in the intersection of Islamist terrorism with Middle Eastern politics. He has served both Democratic and Republican administrations, and his professionalism is not in question. Unlike the objections to Chuck Hagel’s appointment as secretary of defense, Senator Paul’s decision to stand in the way of this appointment is not about persons but about policy – specifically, the Obama administration’s claim that it has a legal and ethical mandate to carry out extrajudicial killings of American citizens overseas that are indistinguishable from assassinations, and, especially, the administration’s recent terrifying expansion of that policy to include the option of putting to death Americans in the United States without trial, proper legal process, or meaningful oversight. Given that the CIA has been the instrument entrusted with carrying out these killings in several cases already, holding up Mr. Brennan’s appointment is appropriate. 
 
 (I suppose I should acknowledge that I was both pleased and amused that part of Senator Paul’s filibuster consisted of sharing my National Review writings about the subject of drone strikes with the Senate, though my experience with senators suggests that they are impervious to argument, reason, evidence, and most other instruments save votes and campaign donations. I have never before to my knowledge been a passive participant in a filibuster.) 
 
 There are a few things about this debate worth considering. One is that we are too much focused on the instrument of these killings rather than on the moral and political context of them. “Drone” is a scary-sounding word, and the prospect of remote-control killings via robots circling invisibly overhead is of course ominous. But the technological means here are of no particular importance or interest — we could as easily be talking about slitting throats, tossing hand grenades through windows, or any other old-fashioned means of ending a life. The question is not about using unmanned aircraft to carry out killings, but about drawing up lists of Americans greenlit for assassination and then acting upon them, first abroad and now, according to Attorney General Eric Holder, at home, if the president judges doing so to be necessary. 
 
 We are suffering from the conflation of rhetoric and reality. Our “War on Terror” is not a war in any conventional sense of the word, and our insistence that in this war the “battlefield is everywhere” takes literally a phrase that is not literally true. Al-Qaeda and its sympathizers are savages who will kill when and where they can; they could strike anywhere, but it does not follow that everywhere is therefore a field of battle subject to the law of war. The Museum of Modern Art and the Mall of America might be possible targets for terrorists, but martial law is not in effect in those locations, nor should it be. If John Walker Lindh had been killed during a shootout at Tora Bora or during the prison uprising at Qala-i-Jangi, that would have been of no special concern. There is no question that killing an American citizen under arms in the course of battlefield combat is easily within the bounds of acceptable national-defense action. 
 
 But that is not the question before us. Instead, we are faced with an arrangement by which the president may designate any American, at home or abroad, as an “enemy combatant,” and place him on a list of people to be killed — not in the course of combat, but in targeted operations indistinguishable from assassinations. The legal justification for this is derived from the penumbras of the 2006 Military Commissions Act — but Congress has passed no law specifically authorizing the premeditated, targeted killings of American citizens abroad, to say nothing of American citizens at home. I very much doubt that such a law could pass Congress, even as defective and unreliable as our Congress can be. Passing such a law would not make these killings any less problematic, but it would introduce a much-needed balance-of-powers element to the situation. 
 
 Our definition of “enemy combatant” is terrifyingly elastic. Far from being limited to armed men carrying out acts of violence, it stretches to cover men such as Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaeda propagandist known, somewhat ridiculously, as “the bin Laden of the Internet.” Mr. al-Awlaki was probably guilty of treason and other serious crimes, but the Constitution contains specific provisions and standards for treason cases, which do not include assassination. Odious as he was, Mr. al-Awlaki came to the attention of our shockingly incompetent national-security administrators when, having been feted at the Pentagon and invited to offer prayers at the Capitol, he turned out to be a sympathizer with and encourager of Islamist terrorism. He blogged, he preached, he made propaganda videos — and that is what put him in the crosshairs. Government officials say there is more to the story, but that “more” is to be found only in classified documents, which makes real oversight — the kind exercised by informed citizens — all but impossible. 
 
 My friend and colleague Andrew C. McCarthy argues that we can trust the federal government to exercise a commonsense standard in these cases. He points to the Jose Padilla episode; Mr. Padilla, too, met the definition of “enemy combatant,” but he was apprehended on an airplane in Chicago rather than in some rathole in Peshawar, so there was no call to put him instantly to death. My own conception of citizenship is such that the convenience of the authorities ought not determine questions of life and death. 
 
 One of the great markers of civilization in republican Rome was a meaningful conception of citizenship as a sacred institution. A Roman citizen could be put to death, but only for a very limited number of crimes — treason notable among them — and according to very narrowly defined processes. (Patricide was punished in a particularly unpleasant fashion — projectio in profluentem.) A Roman citizen could not be whipped, tortured, or crucified — which is what spared St. Paul from suffering the same fate as his Savior. When it came to citizens, certain lines were not to be crossed. But like our definition of “enemy combatant,” the Roman definition of “treason” was elastic, subject to liberal interpretation by the executive branch, and soon enough “treason” came to mean “disagreeing with Nero.” Barack Obama is no Nero. There are some conservatives who believe that he is the worst and most dangerous president we have ever had. I am not among them, being a hardline Wilson-hater. But even those conservatives who do believe he is the worst president we have ever had have no reason to believe that he is the worst president we ever will have, and I have spent enough time looking at the national budget to be fairly well armored against arguments that Washington is capable of behaving collectively in a prudent or responsible fashion. 
 
 Senator Paul is right to take this opportunity to, as somebody once put it, stand athwart, yelling “Stop!” Senator Ted Cruz and others are right to encourage him in this. If your government can put you to death without trial — not on the field of battle, but at breakfast — then you are not a citizen at all: You are a subject. And Americans were not born to be subjects. 
 
 — Kevin D. Williamson is National Review’s roving correspondent. His newest book, The End Is Near and It’s Going to Be Awesome, will be published in May. ||||| AP 
 
 Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday reversed his earlier comments suggesting he would filibuster a resolution authorizing military strikes in Syria. 
 
 "That would be a misinterpretation from the media," he said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, in response to a question from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) 
 
 He added: "What's not open to interpretation would be an event like now where we are discussing now for weeks at a time whether Congress should have to give the authorization," signaling that he wants Congress to vote on a potential strike quickly. 
 
 Paul had left the door open to a filibuster on an earlier conference call with reporters. "I can’t imagine that we won’t require 60 votes on this,” he said Tuesday. “Whether there’s an actual standing filibuster — I’ve got to check my shoes and check my ability to hold my water. And we will see. I haven’t made a decision on that." 
 
 Paul famously filibustered the nomination of CIA Director John Brennan for 13 hours in a protest over President Barack Obama's civil liberties policies. He is an outspoken opponent of American involvement in Syria. 
 
 Sabrina Siddiqui contributed reporting.
– It's possible the Senate will get a chance to confirm John Brennan as the next CIA chief tomorrow—unless Rand Paul's voice holds out. The Kentucky Republican began a genuine filibuster about 11:45am today, reports USA Today. That is, he's not taking advantage of the modern rule that allows him to just say he wants to filibuster—he's talking and talking and talking. "I will speak for as long as it takes," he said. "I will speak today until the president says, ‘No,’ he will not kill you at a cafe.'" The quote refers to White House policy on drone strikes against Americans on US soil. (Watch it live at CSPAN.org.) About three hours into the filibuster, Paul started getting support, reports the Hill. Republicans Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and others helped him keep the filibuster moving, as did Democrat Ron Wyden. Harry Reid is powerless to end it until Paul yields the floor because Reid failed to file the appropriate paperwork beforehand, reports Politico. Yesterday, Paul released a letter from the attorney general stating that while it would be unlikely, it's conceivable that the US might order the killing of an American citizen here to prevent a terror attack.