The Goldsmith-Katyal proposal for a "National Security Court" that could authorize preventative detention has provoked an extensive debate in the comments to this post at Opinio Juris. At Is That Legal? Eric Muller thinks the proposal "has a lot going for it," but is surprised that Goldsmith and Katyal would propose authorizing the preventative detention of U.S. citizens on the basis of simple group membership.

The idea of a domestic terror court is also advocated by my former colleague Amos Guiora. He discusses the idea here, and it's covered in the L.A. Times here.

[NOTE: I revised this post so as to more accurately portray Eric Muller's thoughts on the GOldsmith-Katyal proposal.]

UPDATE: Amos Guiora expands on his domestic terror court proposal here.

On NRO's The Corner, Andrew McCarthy, Director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, comments on the Goldsmith-Katyal proposal for a domestic terrorism court, and highlights his own proposal for a "National Security Court," outlined in this paper, and previously discussed here. As summarized by McCarthy:

The paper undertakes to analyze the history of, and problems with, treating terrorism as a criminal justice issue, as well as the difficulties of fitting its legal issues into the war paradigm. It proposes a hybrid: The creation of a new court that takes the best features of both systems, does not grant terrorists full constitutional rights, but has enough safeguards that other countries (in whose territories terrorists are likely to be apprehended in the future) would be more willing to extradite detainees to it than they have been to our present military system.