Seems like a horrible idea. A judicial decision that it's OK to kill a citizen seems like a punishment. How can a court punish someone who isn't even in court to contest that determination, call witnesses, present evidence, etc? What kind of due process is that? Moreover, a judge doesn't have military or intelligence expertise to make that kind of determination. It would just be a ridiculous thing for a court.
I would prefer just confining drone strikes to specific quasi war-zones defined or supervised by Congress/ the intelligence committees. Perhaps, if we extrapolate from the current criteria the military could only use drones in failed states where the government has no ability to arrest or extradite terrorists. That way, we could make it hard to operate for Al Qaeda in Yemen but we couldn't kill Roman Polanski with a drone strike.
Just more government bureaucracy. We need "oversight" and committees and more rules upon rules.
Just pass a bill saying the US government can't kill its own citizens with drones.
How can we make sure that the military never kills people who are US citizens? That seems impossible in a war situation.
