The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the LawFair

podcast become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash LawFair, that's patreon.com slash

LawFair. Also check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, LawFair

no bull, and the aftermath.

Hello and welcome to the LawFair podcast. I'm Benjamin Wittes. Our subject today is

all within the LawFair family. We're talking about Bobby's new article, Military Intelligence

Convergence, and the Law of the Title 10 Title 50 debate, which has just been published

by the Journal of National Security Law and Policy. Bobby certainly needs no introduction

to the LawFair readership, and neither does Jack with whom he discussed the article in

Cambridge the other day. The abstract of and a link to the article, which is an encyclopedic

work unlike any other that has been published on the subject, is available on the blog.

So Bobby, this is, I think, the definitive article on Title 10 versus Title 50, and that's

a phrase, Title 10 versus Title 50 that gets thrown around a lot in Washington circles,

especially among policymakers and lawyers. Can you tell us what people mean, what they

use that as a shorthand for?

Sure. So, let's start with Title 10. Title 10 is the section of the US Code, of course,

that contains a vast collection of authorities and rules relating to the military establishment.

You'll find the UCMJ there, you'll find all sorts of statutory knackments that give life

to the defense department. It's important to emphasize that Title 10 standing alone isn't

itself the affirmed of authority to, say, engage in a use force. For that, you're looking

either to an AUMF or days gone by a declaration of war or perhaps most commonly evolve a claim

of inherent particle to constitutional authority on the part of the president. But even though

...