I supported confirming Brennan but I cannot think of a worse action or precedent than killing Americans on American soil with drones being justified by secret legal opinions. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

America does not have secret justice. This practice is reminiscent of the old Star Chamber justice that was banned in England centuries ago. It might be theoretically possible to justify a drone attack in America against Americans, but I cannot think of a justification, proponents never offered a justification, and I am glad the attorney general formally wrote that it will not be done.

I emphasize that Paul's filibuster was a talking filibuster. I respect both Paul's kidneys and his tactics in this case. Talking filibusters are far more legitimate than mechanical filibusters where no senator needs to speak.

Plus, this filibuster was designed to raise the visibility of an important issue, which it did, rather to sabotage a nomination, which it did not.

If a senator wants to speak 13 hours to make a point, he has that right, and in this case, Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulHouse bill set to reignite debate on warrantless surveillance Authorizing military force is necessary, but insufficient GOP feuds with outside group over analysis of tax framework MORE was right. In this case, I applaud what Paul did and the way he did it. While you won't find me saying this often, Juan Williams is wrong and Rand Paul is right.