It is not a court of law, none of the committee members are lawyers (two are out of their depth) and so the question that needs asking is:
Why are they considering the legal basis of going to war?
The Iraq Inquiry is no better qualified to do so than George Monbiot, a zoologist, or the many others that would like to believe they are legal experts but aren't.
Why indeed? How come the Chilcot enquiry is asking questions that it wouldn't if know the answers were true or even feasible? Is this a meta-whitewash?