Legalistic Reasons For Bombing Libya

Listening to the radio yesterday, I was struck by the legal approach to the Libya war. We argued Khaddafy was no longer a legitimate ruler of his country and he needs to go, ie regime change. Now, for those who care to remember, the legal framing for Iraq were a bit different - prove you do not have WMDs. Now liberals snark at the fact that no WMDs were eventually found. Fair enough. But that wasn't the argument - the argument was Saddam needed to prove to the international community he no longer had WMDs - since he had a past history of developing them. I even remember in the days before the war - Rumsfeld saying publicly - Saddam can stay in power if he lets in the weapons inspectors.

Khaddafy has no such option. Anything less than removing Khaddafy at this point will be considered a failure. Shouldn't be too difficult (although I realize that is an incredibly stupid thing to say).