The real reason for the filibuster, though, was less about Brennan and more about the Obama Administration's muddled stance on using lethal force against US citizens with weaponized drones on domestic soil.
According to Sen. Paul, "This discussion tonight isn't really so much about John Brennan; it isn't about his nomination so much as it's about whether or not we believe in America there are some rights that are so special, we're not willing to give up on these.
"I think we should all judge as inadequate the president's response when he says he hasn't killed Americans in America yet, he doesn't intend to, but that he might. I don't think that's a response that we should tolerate."
Paul asserted he would not cease the filibuster until he got a clear statement from the Obama Administration outlining the domestic drone policy.
I will speak until I can no longer speak, I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our constitution is important, that your right to trial by jury is precious, that no American should be killed on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.
In particular, he spoke about the concern for declaring the United States part of the battlefield on the War on Terror and what implications that may have for the types of military tactics US citizens may be subject to.
"They're asking to bring the drone strikes to the homeland," remarked Paul.
At one point, Paul offered to stop the filibuster in exchange for a vote on an offered resolution that partially stated:
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.
The request was denied by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), chair of the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Paul also used the senatorial stage to criticize the US foreign policy overall, referring to the idea of "permanent war."
"Our goal shouldn't be to expand war to proportions that have no limit; to say that there are no geographic limits on war is not something I think should be an admiral thing.
"I think that's a mistake in policy to think that we can say that we're going to have perpetual war with no limits, with no geographic limits, no temporal limits."
A video highlighting some of these statements and more can be seen attached to this article and here.
Emilie Rensink writes about civil liberties, counter-terrorism, cyber-security and political activism. Subscribe to get her articles delivered to your inbox.