From the thesis abstract: "In the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. Congress passed the Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF), which established the authority of the president to use force to protect the United States from threats against the homeland. This authority allowed the president to use drones, even against U.S. citizens on foreign soil who have been deemed terrorists and placed on the kill list. The current process lacks procedural due process. These flaws have prompted critics to argue that a drone court should be created to address this concern. This thesis explores the issue of the drone court and asks, if one were created, what form should it take? How should it look? The thesis employs a policy options analysis to review three possible judicial forums for hearing these cases: the Foreign Surveillance Court (FISC), Guiora and Brand's hypothetical Operational Security Court (OSC), and the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT). Five criteria were evaluated: oversight of the executive branch, transparency, timeliness, judges and legal representation, and legal/procedural review. The OSC had the best evaluation because it supported procedural due process. However, policies will need to be implemented to ensure that OSC legal procedures are timely."
Naval Postgraduate School, Dudley Knox Library: http://www.nps.edu/Library/index.aspx