Paul tells POLITICO he feels he 'really had a success' with the filibuster. | John Shinkle/POLITICO Paul hits pro-drone Republicans

Sen. Rand Paul got a little and gave a little in his war on the president’s drone program Thursday, voting to let the nomination of the president’s new CIA chief move forward only after receiving an assurance from the White House that drone strikes couldn’t be used against noncombatant Americans on U.S. soil.

But don’t expect the conservative Kentucky Republican to cede much more ground on the policy, especially not after the hero’s welcome he’s received in Republican circles as disparate as the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Tea Party Patriots.


In an interview with POLITICO on Thursday afternoon, Paul said that he’s not willing to give up the fight just because he voted to cut off debate on John Brennan’s nomination after filibustering for 12 hours, 52 minutes on Wednesday. And he had a message for his critics — notably Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — saying they are “on the wrong side of history” on drone policy.

( Also on POLITICO: Rand Paul's moment)

“They’re of the belief that the war is everywhere. They agree with some of the things the president has been saying, that there are no geographic limitations. The laws of war are basically that you don’t get due process, and I can understand that in a battlefield,” Paul said in the interview, taped shortly after the Brennan confirmation vote. “I’m not for reading Miranda rights to people who are shooting at us, but they say America is a battlefield and that’s a huge mistake.”

Thanks to Paul’s filibuster, the drone program became an unlikely flash point for elected Republicans over the past couple of days, pitting more libertarian lawmakers against establishment types who believe strongly in giving the president wide latitude in matters of national security. But Paul’s stand galvanized the grass roots, combining libertarian forces with Republicans who like any attack on President Barack Obama. Paul found himself awash in moral support — from fellow senators to Twitter followers who stamped their messages with the hashtag #standwithrand.

Not everyone was thrilled.

Just steps off the floor on Thursday morning, Graham took a swipe at Paul and a group of senators who aided his filibuster. Graham said they were “creating a straw man” in worrying aloud that the president might target an innocent American at home.

( PHOTOS: Filibuster highlights)

“I just think that if the party believes that the drone program is illegal and that this president or any other president is going to use it to kill somebody in a cafe who has done nothing, then I think the party’s lost its way,” Graham said. “I just think it’s politics.”

Paul, who said he is considering a 2016 bid for the White House, criticized McCain and Graham for favoring too much power for the presidency.

Straw man or not, the White House acceded Thursday to Paul’s request for an answer to the question of whether the president has “the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil.”

In a three-line letter, Attorney General Eric Holder replied, “The answer to that question is ‘no.’”

“What I wanted to make sure of is that Americans knew that those standards they’re using overseas are not appropriate to use in the country,” Paul said.

Paul then voted with 80 other senators to allow a final confirmation vote on Brennan, who was the force behind the White House drone program as the president’s chief counterterrorism official. But Paul cast one of 34 “no” votes on whether to actually confirm Brennan, who will soon be sworn in as CIA director.

“In the end, I voted ‘no’ on Brennan because I do have some concerns about the drone program. … I am concerned about how it is applied — a little bit — outside the United States, even though the main debate has mostly been about [what might happen] in the United States.”

Paul’s not alone. In fact, there are lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers who still aren’t comfortable with the implications of the drone program.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip and a top ally of the president’s in Congress, said in an interview with POLITICO Thursday there are legitimate concerns about the repercussions of the policy.

“There are aspects of drone policy that need to be reviewed, and the president has said as much. He’s talked about establishing a legal architecture for the use of drones. That is a much more forthcoming and open approach to a tough constitutional and legal issue than we’ve had in the past,” Durbin said.

“When you think back to the torture, waterboarding issue, where we faced an administration in complete denial and an administration that really wouldn’t entertain questions about constitutionality and legality — this is different,” he said. “And there are important questions, and some were raised last night by Sen. Paul.”

Paul says he’ll keep raising questions like the one the administration answered on Thursday.

In particular, Paul said, he fears the possibility that other countries or nonstate actors could purchase cheap drones and use them against Americans.

“If drones become like the missiles in Gaza, we’re going to live in a bad world where everybody’s going to be looking over their shoulder,” he said. “I don’t know how to stop that. I don’t know how to put the genie back in the box.”