side had to say about your big day yesterday. somehow, to allege that the united states of america, our government, would drop a drone hellfire missile on jane fonda, that that that is that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about u.s. policy to the realm of the ridiculous. to my republican colleagues, i don t remember any of you coming down here, suggesting that president bush was going to kill anybody with a drone. so senators mccain and graham, and on the wall street journal editorial board this morning, they took you in their sights, saying, calm down, senator. mr. holder is right, even if he doesn t explain the law very well. the u.s. government cannot randomly target american citizens on u.s. soil or anywhere else. if mr. paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up more than impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. he needs to know what he s
talking about. here s the response, erin. that editorial goes on to say that they can t target americans, unless we designate them as enemy combatants, which begs the question, who gets to make the judgment who s an enemy combatant and who s not? who gets to make the judgment, oh, he s associated with terrorists. if you write an e-mail to your cousin in lebanon and they might be a terrorist or they might have friends who are terrorists, somehow, you are without getting a trial by jury. these are the same two senators that argued in favor of indefinite detention, which means, and i asked senator mccain this directly, i said, does this mean you could take an american citizen, without a trial, and send them to guantanamo bay for the rest of their life, without ever charging them, and he said, yes, if they re a safety risk. who gets to decide? senator mccain? does he get to decide if you re an enemy combatant? i m alarmed by anybody, any adult, or any senator who would say that they get
home to america, that america is a battlefield, and that the laws of war come home. but the laws of war don t involve due process, and can t. and i don t think they should. so, i don t want the law of war to be the law of america, because that would mean that we would be giving up on the bill of rights. on a slightly lighter note, you did get some support and you got some support from the democratic side. democratic senator ron wyden spoke up and defended you. senator paul, even majority leader harry reid had some praise for you and here is that. i ve been involved in a few filibust filibusters, as rand paul has, as rand paul did yesterday. and what i ve learned from my experiences, with talking filibusters, is this. to succeed, you need strong convictions, but also a strong bladder. it s obvious, senator paul has both. i have to say, i was
adult, or any senator who would say that they get to judge your guilt and without a charge send you to indefinite detention. these are the same people who are also arguing that the laws of war apply to america, because america is the battlefield. in the law of war, the conclusion to that is that you don t get due process. so what they re arguing for is alarming. every american should be alarmeded and worried about the philosophy behind their arguments. and i understand what you re saying. i get the logic of that. but, you know, you ve said in the past that you would have convicted al awlaki of treason, and you wouldn t have been against a drone strike against him. how can you be all right with al awlaki killed in yemen by a drone, and not be okay with him being killed by a drone here if he s an enemy combatant plotting against america in america. i think, in america, we have a doctrine of lethal force if
serious discussion about u.s. policy to the realm of the ridiculous. to my republican colleagues, i don t remember any of you coming down here, suggesting that president bush was going to kill anybody with a drone. so senators mccain and graham, and on the wall street journal editorial board this morning, they took you in their sights, saying, calm down, senator. mr. holder is right, even if he doesn t explain the law very well. the u.s. government cannot randomly target american citizens on u.s. soil or anywhere else. if mr. paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up more than impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. he needs to know what he s talking about. here s the response, erin. that editorial goes on to say that they can t target americans, unless we designate them as enemy combatants, which begs the question, who gets to make the judgment who s an enemy combatant and who s not? who gets to make the jud