Done.
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110807.htm
We’re obviously coming at this from different directions. If the UN is to be considered relevant, as President Bush often declares his preference, one cannot do so by figuring out ways to “get past” the UN Charter, or UN resolutions for that matter. I don’t understand how someone can read the totality of the UN Charter and come to some other conclusion than that a country cannot take military action against another unless (a) it is authorized by the Security Council or (b) it is in response to an actual, not a future, threat, and under such a case the matter should immidiately be referred to the Security Council.
In my view, if we wish to proceed with a sense of legitimacy to our military actions, there is a process that we must go through, and that process includes both the Congress and the United Nations. One down, one to go.
But the current situation seems to be that we will proceed with an attack, and some motions are being made to find a loophole in the Charter or UN resolutions that would justify that action. I fail to see how those attempts stand up to scrutiny.
Whether or not one supports a war, it occurs to me that the Korean War was an analagous situation: it was a war that was not explicitly declared/authorized by Congress, and thus was contrary to the expectations of those who drafted the Constitution. This coming war with Iraq will not be explicitly authorized by the UN, and thus will be contrary to the intentions of those who drafted the UN Charter, among them many legends of American statesmanship.