WMT News Director Jeff Schmidt interviewed Nicholas Johnson August 15. The following was broadcast by the station in the 8:00 a.m. news August 16, 2002:

Jeff Schmidt (JS): A University of Iowa Law Professor thinks the U.S. would be overstepping its bounds if it invades Iraq.

Nicholas Johnson: “It’s not only immoral, it’s unconstitutional, and a clear violation of international law. It also happens to be disastrous in terms of our relations with our allies, the increasing of hostilities on the part of our enemies, increasing the likelihood of terrorism in the United States.”

JS: Nicholas Johnson wonders what right the U.S. has in serving as the cheerleader of democracy while engaging in a foreign policy that allows the U.S. to change any governmental regime it sees fit.

Q:
A: Well, if the President has justification, he hasn’t told us what it is.

Launching an attack on a nation that has not attacked us, without Congressional approval, is not only immoral, it’s unconstitutional and a clear violation of international law.

It also happens to be disastrous in terms of our relations with our allies, the increasing of hostility on the part of our enemies, increasing the likelihood of terrorism in the United States, creating an imbalance of power within the Middle East, threatening our oil resources there, and adding immeasurably to the debt that we’re currently piling up and handing off to our grandchildren.

In short, I think most thoughtful folks have come to the conclusion that this was an ill-considered idea and merely discussing it globally—as it certainly has been discussed—has already done us a lot of this harm, but nowhere near the amount of self-inflicted harm that will come about if, in fact, we actually engage in this unilateral attack on a nation.

Q:
A: Well, I don’t think the President has demonstrated that there is any meaningful relationship between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden; they are, in fact, enemies.

Bear in mind, in all of what I’m saying, I’m simply relying upon what we’ve been told so far.

I don’t dismiss the possibility—in fact, probably the probability—that there’s a lot of information that we don’t have. That is, in part, much of the problem.

But based on the information we do have, Scott Ridder, who was a chief of the U.N. inspection team over there, has said that 95 percent of any weapons he [Saddam] had have been removed by the inspection teams, and the remaining five percent was probably destroyed during the old Gulf War, and that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there are any weapons of mass destruction over there now.

Again, he doesn’t have all of the information either. He’s not saying there aren’t any weapons. He’s saying there is no evidence whatsoever that there are any weapons.

Now, even if there were weapons, if we’re going to talk about the propriety of attacking nations that have weapons of mass destruction, I think we’re on very shaky ground since the United States possesses more of them than all the rest of the world’s nations combined.

So, if attacking a nation merely because it has weapons of mass destruction is legitimate, we’re talking about World War III—with all of the nations of the world lined up against the United States.

Q:
A: Well, obviously that’s [WWIII] not going to happen.

All I’m saying is that there is no justification for trying to overthrow another nation’s regime, which is what Bush has rather candidly announced that he’s trying to do.

I mean, by what right do we go around as the cheerleader for democracy in the world and simultaneously engage in a foreign policy that we say permits us to change any regime we want to change to better suit the interests of American corporations looking for cheap labor, natural resources and markets for our products?

It’s not that it could not be a nation’s foreign policy. It’s just that it’s not a foreign policy that squares very nicely with saying that what we’re trying to do is make the world safe for democracy.

Q:
A: Well, one can speculate [about political motives and consequences], and I don’t want to turn my comments into something that sounds partisan. Because, in point of fact, I think Democrats as well as Republicans are lined up on both sides of this issue and it’s not really about partisan politics it’s about the best interests of the United States.

If you want to speculate, usually when a nation is at war, the party in power either gains in the next election or loses less in the next election.

That’s a very cynical view, and I wouldn’t want to suggest that it's Bush’s motive, but that probably will be one of the consequences.

In terms of the impact on the economy, clearly, again to switch to the Democratic party, one of the things that brought us out of any economic difficulties in the late ‘30’s was World War II.

So, although war produces nothing of economic value -- it’s simply weapons we simply dump into the ocean or shoot off into space -- it can have an impact on the economy.