Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s top lawyer until three months ago, is skeptical of the need for a so-called drone court.

Johnson, who personally approved the legal authority behind every major military strike ordered by the secretary of defense and President Obama until January 1, says the U.S. military is best equipped to conduct targeted killings of terrorism suspects abroad, without the need for a new court.

This morning, Johnson, who has returned to private practice, is at Fordham University to deliver a speech that he bills as the first to tackle the pros and cons of such a court. Johnson directly challenges advocates of the idea, including senators calling for more oversight and transparency, such as Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), intelligence committee chairwoman, and his old boss, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Legal authority for targeted strikes against terrorism suspects that are conducted by the military is already in place, Johnson argues. What is needed, he offers, is more transparency around how those suspects are identified. Some secrets about targeted operations, Johnson claims, can be revealed without compromising national security.

“Most people, I think, do not have a quarrel with the bottom-line conclusions and results,” Johnson says in the speech, an advance copy of which was obtained by The E-Ring. “The problem is that the American public is suspicious of executive power shrouded in secrecy.”

Because U.S. officials will not confirm targeted killings even though they are widely reported by the media, the government is losing the trust and support of the public it is trying to protect, Johnson claims. But, even though an oversight court may sound like a good idea because judges are thought to be fairer than White House politicos, Johnson argues that a new court would be problematic and unnecessary -- at least for the military.

“We must be realistic about the degree of added credibility such a court can provide,” he said. Those few cases that would require the court’s approval likely would be kept secret anyway, and most of those cases still would be approved. The current FISA, or foreign intelligence court, is “derided” as a rubber stamp by the same groups calling for a new drone court, he notes.

Johnson analyzes three possible versions of a drone court and argues why all three would fail. A court that reviews all desired strikes away from a battlefield and against terrorists, including by the military, would be a logjam and require too much evidence to act in real time. A court that reviewed only the evidence for strikes against U.S. citizens abroad would require an impractical standard of intelligence, essentially forcing the government prove it knows the exact nationality of every target, American or not.

Finally, Johnson offers his least bad option: a court that would review and approve lethal force only against terrorists known to be U.S. citizens “but only in instances not part of a congressionally-authorized armed conflict conducted by the U.S. military.” In other words, this court would review killings of Americans abroad conducted by the CIA or other non-military agencies.

“In my view targeted lethal force is at its least controversial when it is on its strongest, most traditional legal foundation. The essential mission of the U.S. military is to capture or kill an enemy. Armies have been doing this for thousands of years. As part of a congressionally-authorized armed conflict, the foundation is even stronger.”

“Lethal force outside the parameters of congressionally-authorized armed conflict by the military looks to the public to lack any boundaries, and lends itself to the suspicion that it is an expedient substitute for criminal justice.”

Johnson also notes that courts are not equipped to decide “questions of feasibility of capture and imminence,” which can change rapidly.

Finally, he argues, the president has the constitutional authority to use force, and the debate over killing terrorists one-by-one seems to naively forget that the president has sole authority to launch a nuclear strike that could kill millions of people.

“Article II of the Constitution states that the President ‘shall’ be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. That is his burden and responsibility,” Johnson argues. “He may delegate his war-fighting authority within his chain of command, but he cannot assign part of it away to another branch of government, nor have it taken away by an act of Congress.”

In the end, Johnson says more transparency will go a long way, if administration officials are willing to find that path.

“Put 10 national security officials in a room to discuss de- classifying a certain fact, they will all say I’m for transparency in principle, but at least 7 will be concerned about second-order effects, someone will say ‘this is really hard, we need to think about this some more,’ the meeting is adjourned, and the 10 officials go on to other more pressing matters.

“Last year we declassified the basics of the U.S. military’s counterterrorism activities in Yemen and Somalia and disclosed what we were doing in a June 2012 War Powers report to Congress. It was a long and difficult deliberative process to get there, but certain people in the White House persevered, we said publicly and officially what we were doing, and, so far as I can tell, the world has not come to an end.”

You can read the full speech here:

Pentagon officials said the death of senior Taliban leader Maulvi Nazir, if true, would be a serious hit to terrorist groups in Pakistan fighting against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Nazir’s death by a U.S. drone missile strike was reported early Thursday by the Associated Press out of Pakistan. Pentagon officials typically do not comment on such drone strikes, which usually are carried out by the CIA and not the military, and on Thursday would not confirm the incident.

But George Little, Pentagon press secretary, did not hesitate to say Nazir’s death “would be a significant blow.” Little said he was unable to confirm Nazir's death independently, as of Thursday morning.

Nazir was believed to have an agreement with Pakistani authorities and was tolerated there because he directed attacks only at American and Afghan targets, and not Pakistanis, according to several reports. For that, Nazir is described in Thursday headlines as one of the “good Taliban” inside Pakistan, and the “sole” Taliban leader there willing to be a potential ally to Pakistani leaders, who remain frustrated the CIA targeted him.

In the Pentagon, Little was unapologetic.

"This is someone who has a great deal of blood on his hands," he said.

As you watch tonight’s presidential debate between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on foreign policy, remember this: there are few things Americans care less about than foreign policy. And, conveniently, there are fewer things Americans know less about than foreign policy.

But Americans have opinions, nonetheless. Since 2010, there have been more Americans saying they wanted to pull troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible than those saying the United States should stabilize that country first. By a roughly 60-30 percent gap, Americans are more worried about China’s economic strength than its military power. More than 60 percent have no faith that sanctions will sway Iran to give up its nuclear program. And more than 65 percent of Americans think the administration is treating Israel just fine. As for Russia, only 2 percent of Americans think it’s the greatest threat to the United States.

National security is not run by referendum, however. But keep those statistics and these others released last Friday in mind when Obama and Romney try to strike a balance tonight between looking like a strong commander-in-chief, but not one who is wasteful or itching to get the U.S. too involved around the world. Americans want a tough president, but one who is ready to focus his attention back home, according to the Pew Research Center’s latest findings.

What does that mean for these five issue areas that have been announced for tonight’s debate?

“America’s Role in the World”

This topic goes to the heart of the U.S. military’s footprint around world and how the next president intends to use it -- and never mind the militarization of foreign policy, because that’s a phrase barely mentioned in the Pentagon. Obama has presented Congress a five-year plan that offers a robust global counterterrorism presence with a significant downsizing of the Army and Marine Corps, a plan strongly backed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a pivot/rebalancing toward Asia. That means a leaner military. Defense spending could get aired out tonight here and it could be interesting. The brass are on record that they want to reset, refit, and retrain the force for the post-Iraq and Afghanistan world. Few are calling for what Romney is advocating: a significant increase in the troop presence in the Middle East and a 4 percent GDP-sized spending account for the Pentagon. More likely, the candidates will present their views in basest of terms: the open hand of Obama versus the “no apology” of Romney and American exceptionalism. But will they challenge each other?

“Our Longest War -- Afghanistan and Pakistan”

There is less daylight between Obama and Romney on any topic than Afghanistan. That’s mostly because Romney has not offered any different course other than promising to be more attentive to commanders on the ground, which allows him to imply Obama has not done so. In his Tampa acceptance speech, Romney didn’t mention Afghanistan. Republicans are divided over what to do there next. And even though Democrats by 98 percent think Obama’s pullout order too slow, the president gives Romney little room here. The U.S. and NATO are committed to the 2014 deadline -- whether you believe the U.S. will keep fighting that long or not. Unless moderator Bob Scheiffer draws something out of the candidates, those watching among the 67,000 troops in Afghanistan can expect little more than a rehashing of the justification for extending the war another two years.

“Red Lines -- Israel and Iran”

Romney has tried most to distinguish himself as a better friend to Israel than Obama. But as they speak, the United States and Israel are preparing to begin a massive war game that’s unofficially geared as a united defense against an Iranian missile threat -- the expected response from Tehran should anyone try to knock out their nuclear program.  “Who loves Israel more?” is now staple campaign fare. Look for Obama tonight to defend his love for Israel and press Romney to say what, exactly, he’d do differently than the current administration. Look for Romney to allege that Obama’s sanctions-loving, Israel-ostracizing public posture is only making the region less stable.

“The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism”

Obama might use some of this time to explain just how extensively the Pentagon is preparing for or engaged in counterterrorism operations country-by-country across the Middle East and North Africa. U.S. officials are working the new post-Arab Awakening governments to secure relationships and military ties they’ll need to track and keep a thumb on al Qaeda and other extremists. Under Obama, security and stability still drives Middle East policy. Romney will likely continue to hit Obama on botching Benghazi, on not helping the Syrian rebels enough, and for allowing extremism to spread throughout the region. It could be the most interesting exchange of the night, especially if the president opts to highlight U.S. military activity in the region under his watch.

“The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World”

For some national security watchers, this topic should be called “The Rise of China’s Military.” But it’s not, for a reason. Most Americans are far more concerned about China’s economic rise than they are about J-20 stealth fighter test runs. Romney has made trade with China a centerpiece of his campaign. Don’t expect a debate over strategic power here -- it’s probably the segment to step out and grab popcorn as the candidates discuss manufacturing jobs and currency manipulation. Or to flip over to what tens of millions of other Americans tonight will actually be paying close attention to: Monday Night Football.