Thanks for the responses. Let me see if I can articulate the global test we are all talking about.
The global test refers to two basic criteria, as Kerry stated:
1.) The nation understands the reason for attack and the majority are behind it.
2.) The preemptive action is legitimized by agreed upon international standards.
In the event that the fulfilling of the international standards is questionable, it is pertinent of the nation that is using preemptive action to prove the legitimacy of the action after the fact. If this is done, we passed the global test. If not, we failed. It is up to the nation to take a gamble with their credibility.
I also just realized that Kerry speaks in the past tense when he says, "you can prove to the world that you did it for legitmate reasons."
The Iraq War would fail on a couple of counts. First, there was little evidence for the WMD programs, making the justifications at best questionable. Second, much of the evidence that was used was based on unsubstantiated interpretation of the intelligence and was the result of data mining (Aluminum tubes, for instance. Why were we not told that the top experts questioned the stance that these we used for nuclear weapons production?). And Third, we could not prove the war was justified after the fact.
First, is this an accurate interpretation of the Global Test? And second, are there any problems with this test if I interpreted correctly