The following excerpt is lovely, ironic black humor (to my now admittedly warped sensibilities):

p.131, fn 170

One issue that the Subcommittee discussed was whether the Article 32 investigating officer should be a judge advocate or other officer. ... GEN Chiarelli referenced investigative efforts after Haditha: “in order to understand why we shot and why we didn’t shoot, you got to have somebody down there to understand what it’s like to have to make those decisions, and not all our lawyers have had to make those decisions, but I think it was absolutely critical that that individual ha[s] a bevy of lawyers that he could call on to give him recommendations and make sure he was straight.” DLPB Public Meeting, 15 February 2013, Transcript, at 183.
Thus, GEN Chiarelli, I'm sure that you'll recommend that each Marine "Strategic Corporal", who has to make the actual command decision to order "the shoot" and probably do some of the actual shooting, shall have his own "bevy of lawyers". And, also that bevy will covey and come up not only with the appropriate weaselly, lawyerly language for the order, but also the appropriate weaselly, lawyerly language for his after-action report to render him impervious to prosecution. Ah, yes, Gen. Large Rhetoric; what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Now, I'm warmed up for the 36-page critique.

You could send it email; or if you think it's fit for publication, save it as a .pdf file and attach it to a post here.

Regards

Mike