Crime or Act of War?
- The Media, 9-11, and Iraq
Kenneth Mentor J.D.,
Criminal Justice Department
University of North Carolina Pembroke
This presentation was prepared
Annual Meetings of the American Society of Criminology
Chicago, November 2002
The attacks on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon can be defined as criminal acts. These events
can also be defined as acts of war. The media and
the White House framed their preferred, and shared, definition
of events very early in the process of understanding and
responding to 9/11. As we know, state response differs
depending on how events are defined. In fact, the process
of definition is used to prepare the public for a particular
response. This paper examines the media's role in defining
9/11 and the reaction to the attacks. Rhetoric, symbolism,
limiting of dissent and narrowing of issues are discussed.
The media has repeated similar processes as they encourage
support of, and preparation for, war against Iraq. Examples
of the media role in regarding to 9/11 and Iraq are used
to illustrate the limitations of mainstream media. This
presentation concluded with a list of website that present
By any measure, the events of September 11,
2001, were a terrible tragedy. This tragedy required an official
response from the United States. This response could have
taken many forms. One year after 9/11 we are again being
asked to consider a response to the situation in Iraq. Again,
the response of the United States can take many forms.
Although I am reluctant to follow the administration's
lead in blurring these two events, this presentation discusses
each event and examines the media's role in defining the
situations and potential responses. As we know, the United
States began a "war on terror" following 9/11.
It appears that "war" will also be the response
in Iraq. Mainstream media seldom questions whether war is
an appropriate response. In fact, mainstream media often
provides crucial assistance in the government's effort to
convince the American people that war is the best, and in
fact the only, option.
This presentation includes three sections.
First, we examine the media's role regarding 9/11. Next the
media's role regarding the possible war with Iraq is discussed.
Finally, links to alternative media sources are included.
The extensive list of links is include in the hope that you
will look through the websites as you seek alternative sources
for information, news, and views.
The Media and 9/11
Was 9/11 a crime or act of war? Hijacking has always been
treated as a crime. An obvious difference is that this time,
the hijacking ended with the destruction of the World Trade
Center and part of the Pentagon. Instead of a hijacking we
saw commercial airlines used as missile that were used to
attack buildings. Similarly, Timothy McVeigh used a van loaded
with explosives to attack a building in Oklahoma City. This
was treated as a crime.
Other commercial airlines have been used in terrorist acts
directed against the United State. Pan Am 103 was blown up
over Lockerbie Scotland. We now know that the act was carried
out by men who were working with the blessing of the Libyan
government. Pan Am 103 was not treated as an act of war.
This event was defined as an international crime. The men
responsible are now in prison and the Libyan government has
admitted their role and has expressed a willingness to pay
damages to the families of those killed in Flight 103.
We also know that the World Trade Center was attacked in
1993. This attack was treated as crime. Ten militant Islamists,
though to have ties to Al-Qaeda, were found guilty of conspiracy.
H. Wayne Elliott, former Chief of the U.S. Army's International
Law Division of the Judge Advocate General School, sums up
the crimes associated with the 9/11 attacks: “Of course,
U.S. domestic law prohibits what happened. But, even under
international law and the law of war, these acts would be
prohibited. The initial seizure of the plane would be a violation
of the hijacking laws and treaties; holding the people on
those planes amounted to taking hostages; crashing the plane
into civilian targets was a war crime. And, if this was simply
the first (or merely the latest) act of war it amounted to
an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.” Click this link
for the full story: http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/attack-elliott.html
International law provides many alternatives when the aggrieved
party seeks to control rouge states, organizations, or individuals.
The United States ignored international law by using its
military to retaliate. Why, in this case, did the United
States reject the option of working through the legal system
to bring the surviving perpetrators to justice? Why did we
abandon the precedent we had followed regarding various hijackings,
Pan Am 103, McVeigh, and a previous attack on the World Trade
Center? How was this done with virtually no criticism from
International humanitarian law reflects the lessons of the
Holocaust and World War II. This law has been codified in
the Geneva Conventions and other universally accepted treaties.
The events of 9/11 were so far beyond the imagination of
those who wrote these laws that it is safe to assume that
these laws were not written to address the events of 9/11.
In effect, it is very difficult to define 9/11 by reference
to international humanitarian law. If we accept the media
and government interpretation of events the attacks were
not carried out by the state but by an organization that
has never claimed responsibility for the acts. Click this
link for more on this issue: http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/attack-intro.html
Although inadequate to define these events, international
law remains important in our efforts to resolve international
disputes without violations of accepted humanitarian principles.
It would be very difficult to make a case that since the
events of 9/11 were hard to define that the Bush Administration
suddenly had the right to ignore humanitarian laws that clearly
apply to the behavior of the United States. The administration
never needed to worry about making this argument since questions
were never raised in a manner that was loud and clear enough
that they could not be ignored.
Historically, wars have been waged by nation-states. The
objective of war has been to control other nation-states
or to seize control and/or protect a geographic area. In
this case the United States directed the energies of the
military to stop an organization. The initial stated objective
was to hunt down and kill members of this organization without
regard to international borders. In effect, the administration
rushed into a war with no clear enemy. Why? We may never
know the true motivation. Vengeance, oil and political strategery
(to us a Bushism) are the top candidates but without an open
debate of the issues, moderated by a free and unfiltered
press, it will be difficult to know the true motivations.
Media Coverage by the Numbers
A Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe search of CNN
transcripts between 9/11/2001 and 10/10/2001, using "world
trade" and "attack" together as search terms,
yields 545 stories.
Note that there are some methodological issues
regarding this search. As we know, on 9/11 and the days immediately
following the attacks, CNN and all other news media were
covering this story 24 hours a day. The number of stories
is well below what we would expect so it is clear that either
CNN doesn't transcribe every story or that Lexis-Nexis does
not provide full access to every transcript. In addition,
several stories run at multiple times throughout the day
yet are only counted once during a search of transcripts.
Also, this search has been run on several occasions with
different results. It is not clear why the same search would
yield different results.
Of the 545 stories:
38 aired on September
375 included the word "war"
of these 375 stories,
13 aired on 9/11
114 included the word "peace"
66 included the word "trial"
of these 66 stories,
None aired on 9/11
52 contained the phrase "act
129 included the word "crime"
of these 129 stories,
4 were aired on 9/11
9 contained the phrase "criminal
8 of these 9 also included "war"
13 contained the phrase "international
12 of these 13 also
the first use of "international
law" was on 9/16
48 included the term "pearl
Behind the Numbers
An attempt was made to find articles that debated
whether to define the 9/11 events as "act of war" or "criminal
act." A seach of the initial 545 articles yielded 116
that used the terms "war" OR "act of war" AND "crime" OR "criminal
act." Each of these transcripts was reviewed.
The first story that used this combination
of word aired at 2:30 on 9/11. By this time CNN had added
the "America Under Attack" banner that many of
us remember. The theme of their coverage was already established.
The following excerpt indicates that CNN reporters had started
to consider how the United States would respond.
QUESTION: Do you think there
should be any retaliation on the part of the United States
for what happened here in this country, both in New York,
Washington and other places?
PATAKI: The first step right now is to make sure we do everything to help
those people who need our support, whether they're injured or still trapped
in buildings. The second thing is to make sure, at the same time, we're providing
the maximum security against possible additional incidents.
But clearly, this is an attack upon America, it's an attack upon our freedom
and our way of life, and we must retaliate and go after those who perpetuated
this heinous crime against the people of America.
QUESTION: This has been compared to Pearl Harbor, do you consider this to
be an act of war?
GIULIANI: This is a vicious, unprovoked, horrible attack on innocent men,
women and children. It's one of the most heinous acts, certainly in world
history. And as the governor said and I said to the president, we fully and
completely support him in any action that he has to take in order to make
an example of the people who are responsible for this.
QUESTION: Is it an act of war in your mind?
GIULIANI: I don't know that I want to use those words. I think the president
is the one that has to respond. And I think what he has to know is that all
of us in New York support him and support him completely in the efforts that
he's going to have to make over the next couple of days, week, to make a
point that people can't do this. You can't attack innocent men, women and
children. And ultimately, I'm totally confident that American democracy and
the American rule of law will prevail, and the people of New York are going
to help demonstrate that over the next couple of days.
Governor Pataki initially referred to the events
as a heinous crime. The reporter immediately made a Pearl
Harbor reference and asked whether this was an act of war.
Mayor Guiliani is reluctant to endorse those terms. He talks
about a "vicious, unprovoked, horrible attack" on
innocents. In response, the reporter again attempts to get
someone to say this was an act of war. Guiliani again refuses
to take the bait (but refuses to dispute this spin). Instead, he expressed his belief in "democracy
and the American rule of law."
The Pearl Harbor theme was repeated many times
over the next few weeks. The only other reference to Pearl
Harbor on 9/11 was made by James Kallstrom, former Assistant
Director of the FBI. As with the previous example, the reporter
initiated the discussion of an "act of war." Kallstrom
took the bait.
KALLSTROM: I think it's clearly
an act of war. I think it's -- in many ways, it's a different
time, but it's everything that Pearl Harbor was
and more. It just puts an exclamation point next to this
dangerous world we live in. And the inability to appease
people that are this demented with rhetoric, it's --
hasn't worked, it's not going to work.
We can see what happened today. All peace-loving people of the world, all
people that believe in democracy and freedom, need to stand against this.
Any country that harbors or aids this type of activity anywhere in the world
needs to declare which side they're on and we need to seriously do something
about this. And I believe we will.
In his emotional response Mr. Kallstrom also
introduces several themes that will be repeated many times.
First, he labels the attackers as "demented." Words
such as "cowardly" are "sick" were also
used to define the attackers. Remember that George W. Bush
called these people, and those who support them, "evil
doers" and "enemies of peace." Kallstrom also
relies on this imagery as he discusses "peace-loving
people" who need to take a stand. Introducing another
key theme, Kallstrom suggests that all countries need to "decide
which side they're on." The good vs. evil dichotomy
is now fortified with the suggestion that everyone must choose
sides. The "with us or against us" theme became
very prevalent and served to quiet many dissenting voices.
Another theme is introduced as Kallstrom refers
to what he sees as a failure of "rhetoric." He
suggests that this hasn't worked and will never work. Kallstrom
is clearly not interested in negotiation. Remember
that these comments were made within hours of the attacks.
There is no evidence that the government had started to form
a response. However, the media had clearly decided on a path
Another major theme that was introduced within
hours of the attacks was that Americans may need to give
up some liberties in return for security. In an interview
with CNN's Judy Woodruff we heard from Alexander Haig, Ronald
Reagan's Chief of Staff. Although he claimed to be and advocate
of individual liberties, Haig offered the following:
The simple facts are that
national leadership has to establish that terrorism is
an illegal act of such magnitude now that it overwhelms
the issues of social justice which cause us to quibble,
and restrain us at times when a crime of
this nature has been executed.
As we know, the events of 9/11 have resulted
in a loss of civil liberties that may be unparalleled in
the history of this country. Rhetoric supporting this loss
of liberty began within hours of the attacks.
Discussion of whether the attacks constituted
a crime or act of war had not seriously started on the day
of the attacks. If anything, it appeared that politicians
had not yet been provided with "talking points" that
are often provided to politicians in a position to alter
the direction of debate. The following exchange includes
Dick Armey, the House Majority leader.
REP. RICHARD ARMEY (R-TX),
MAJORITY LEADER: We had the bipartisan leadership of
both the House and Senate. We were of course -- obviously,
like everybody in America -- seeking information, trying
to understand exactly what's happening. Where is it coming
from? Who's responsible, and how do we respond? Measuring
the threat to the nation, and preparing ourselves to
bring the members of Congress back to work at the appropriate
time under the right circumstances and make the point
that I made earlier.
You may scar democracy, but you don't shut it down. We will be back to work
tomorrow. We think this is a horrible criminal act. It is
just inhumane. It's insane. And the American House and Senate, the Congress
of this nation, as the president of this nation will address that tonight.
We will address the nation's business this week, and we will continue the
process of finding the people who are responsible and bringing them to justice.
KARL: Now, I understand that at least four times during the day the vice
president briefed those leaders -- those members of the leadership that were
in that room at that classified location. What did you learn about that fourth
plane? The plane that landed in Western Pennsylvania?
ARMEY: Well we learned some things about that. At this point the information
is classified. It is clear that we to have had a good investigation going
forward. We are gathering information, there is a (AUDIO GAP) confidentiality
on what we know, but we do know that this is a serious premeditated crime, and
I can say without any doubt or hesitation it's an international crime. And
we will be able to find the people responsible. And America, I believe --
with the cooperation of all civilized nations -- will bring these people
Not only is he talking about the attack as
a criminal act, in fact an international crime, he suggests
that we work with civilized nations to bring these people
to justice. This was the first, and only, time Armey talked
about the attacks as a crime. As we see in the following
excerpt, by 9/16 Armey had changed his tune.
BLITZER: Congressman Armey, based
on what you're hearing, tell the American public right
now and the people around the world watching this program
what kind of strike, what kind of military action they
should be prepared to observe from the United States?
ARMEY: Well, they might be prepared
to not observe it at all in the sense that we all
watched Desert Storm.
Basically, what you have is these snakes are in their holes scattered around
the world, plotting and scheming. We've got to find where they are, and we've
got to kill them before they get out of their holes. And that's not necessarily
going to be something that the American people are going to see as it happens
or hear a great deal about it in any kind of detail before it happens. It
is something that has to be carried out in the same way they carry out their
activities -- behind quiet doors and, in a sense, under the cloak of secrecy.
We have to do the same. You've got to use their tactics to catch them.
BLITZER: But, Congressman Armey, should the American public
be prepared for a U.S. military invasion of Afghanistan where the Taliban
regime harbors, protects, Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organization, as we
heard from Secretary of State Colin Powell?
ARMEY: I believe that will depend
a great deal on the Taliban and how they react. If
they react with defiance and arrogance; if they say
not only will we harbor these people, we will foster
these activities, they could be calling that wrath
very clearly and very specifically upon themselves.
On September 12 CNN was reporting that "people
see this as far more than a crime or an
isolated terrorist incident. That came through loud and clear
in four different polls." CNN reported that in their
own poll "86 percent of Americans described yesterday's
attack as an act of war against the United
States." By this time George Bush, John Ashcroft, Colin
Powell, Dick Gephardt and others had spoken to the American
people and referred to the attacks as an act of war. Other
than a brief discussion between two reporters, who quickly
discounted the idea of anything but a military response,
we had reached the end of the second day with no discussion
of any response other than war.
Many commentators stated that it was clear
that we were at war although they acknowledged that we did
not know who would be the target of this war. The answer
to this question first appeared on September 13. Two of the
545 stories included in the initial dataset refered to a "war
against terrorism." The media also began to focus on
Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan.
On September 14 CNN was presenting a variety
of "talking heads" who discussed war strategy.
The pentagon had asked for the mobilization of 50,000 troops.
CNN began to present the idea of reinstating the draft. As
in other cases where a new topic was introduced, the question
first appeared on a CNN poll. The media was following a pattern
in which they identified the potential issues, included these
issues in a poll, and then used the results of the poll to
introduce the issue to the viewers. In addition to introducing
the idea of a draft, Wolf Blitzer introduced another theme
that was prevalent in subsequent coverage of 9/11 as he talked
about the united Congress.
Senator Levin, another question
we asked in our CNN/"Time" Magazine poll was
this. Should the U.S. reinstate the military draft if
a ground war is necessary to fight this war against
terror? 66 percent favor it, 28 percent oppose it. Do
you think it will be necessary to go back to a draft?
LEVIN: If it is, we should do it. We should not be reluctant to use all of
the forces at our command, including our citizen armies and including the
draft. So the Reserves today are going to be called up, up to 50,000 of them.
Those are our citizen soldiers. And the draft if it's necessary to prevail,
I vote for it absolutely.
This is December 8, 1941. But this time, it's a war against
terrorism. But the people here are so determined. We have that absolutely
unified determination. So yes, if we need the draft in order to carry out
a successful war, I would vote for it. Again I emphasize,
we need a strong coalition. And I believe we're going to be able to put it
together, because that's important in terms of success.
We need the time to prepare for this effort. We need the time to prevail
because we must prevail. And part of that success is going to be achieved
because I believe so many nations, some of whom have never participated with
us, this time will join against the common scourge of terrorism.
BLITZER: And we only have a few seconds left. Senator Warner, in the many
years you've been in Congress in Washington, you're a Republican. Senator
Levin is Democrat. Have you ever seen the U.S. Congress as united as it is
WARNER: No, very clearly this is evidence of it. 10 years ago, I helped draft
the resolution that George Bush, then president, won the Gulf War with
our coalition allies. It was three days and three nights of ferocious debate
on the Senate floor and it prevailed by only five votes.
This one is 100 votes. What clear evidence. Senator Levin and I worked on
the drafting with our leadership of this. What clear evidence of a unity
in the Congress and the Congress speak for the people of the United States.
Late in the day of September 14 CNN changed
the banner that appeared on the screen throughout the day. "America
Under Attack" became "America's New War." The
theme of their coverage was changing.
On September 15 Congress passed a resolution
authorizing the President to use all necessary and appropriate
force to retaliate.
The Media and Iraq
Many Americans are troubled by the suggestion that the United
States will engage in a unilateral first-strike to prevent
an event that the administration believes may occur in the
future. Why would we allow such an extreme departure from
decades of foreign policy? Why does this significant and
far-reaching policy change without public debate? For more
information see: http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/bush-intro.html
As mentioned above, the United States had a history of treating
terror incidents are criminal acts rather than acts of war.
This changed with 9/11 as the Bush Administration abandoned
the precedent established through our reaction to previous
terror attacks. How was this done with virtually no criticism.
Similarly, the Bush Administration now believes we are authorized
to use pre-emptive strikes against any country that we believe
could pose a risk in the future. How is this major policy
shift accomplished with no criticism?
As with 9/11, mainstream media has played a major role in
the Bush administration's efforts to “sell” the war with
Iraq. Here are a few points that illustrate the problem.
These points apply to the events of 9/11 nearly as well as
they apply to an effort to critically evaluate the media's
role regarding the possibility of war with Iraq.
War is Imminent: The prevailing view found in mainstream
media is that a war with Iraq is imminent. For example,
MSNBC aired a nightly program called “Countdown to Iraq” (the
title has now been changed to "Countdown: Iraq").
Why is the title a statement rather than a question? Many
Americans continue to believe there is still a chance to
stop this war.
No Dissent: The mainstream media hides dissent. Over
100,000 anti-war protesters marched in Washington on October
26, 2002. Some organizations report the number as high as
200,000. Similar protests took place all over the world.
The mainstream media seemed reluctant to reports these protests.
When they did, they greatly underestimate the number of protesters
and focused on the organizer's disappointment about the lack
of protest. Most importantly, mainstream media reports fail
to provide information that would be helpful in understanding
the positions of the protesters. The media seems to believe
that it is sufficient to say that some people disagree with
the administration - the subtext is that such disagreement
War Sells: Ratings for CNN, MSNBC, and network news
programs are never higher than for war and similar events.
Never forget that the mainstream media is in the business
of selling. Unfortunately, advertisers that do not flinch
at being associated with war footage do not want to be associated
with something as unpatriotic as protest.
Tunnel Vision: News events take on a life of their
own. We saw this as the media became obsessed with a sniper
who was randomly shooting people in the Washington D.C. area.
Now that the sniper has been caught we can now go back to “normal.” The
media does not question the fact that “normal” is a situation
in which dozens of people are killed by guns every day. A
theme was established for this story and the media will stick
with the theme - whether it is logical or not.
War is Clean: Many of us remember the Vietnam conflict
and earlier wars. War is not clean. However, the media amazes
and entertains us with “smart bombs” that surgically remove
the enemy with a minimum of “collateral damage.” The media
has failed to inform us that current war plans involve a
massive invasion of Iraq. Up to 500,000 soldiers are expected
to invade Baghdad, seize control, and chase the enemy to
the borders and beyond. How many body bags will result? Why
isn’t this question being asked?
Some Humans are Worth More than Others: We know that
many deaths will occur. We might even blow up a wedding,
as we did in Afghanistan. The tone of media coverage would
lead one to believe that since these are not Americans, it
really doesn’t matter. How will we react when the body bags
contain American soldiers?
American Soldiers are Safe: The government and mainstream
media would have us believe that the biggest risk to our
soldiers is “friendly fire.” In contrast, international news
sources reported Afghanistan incidents that resulted in the
death of 30 or more American soldiers. Did these events not
occur, or did the mainstream media hide the facts?
Saddam = Iraq: The government and mainstream media
has focused on one man, Saddam Hussein. The mainstream media
largely ignores the other 22 million Iraqis, many of whom
are starving to death as a result of our efforts to stop
one man. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died as a result
of our embargo. Amazingly, the Bush administration actually
believes that the people of Iraq will rise in support of
our efforts once we topple Saddam.
What Do We Do about this Bias?
One solution, on an individual level at least, is to seek
out alternative media. And you will need to look for it.
Alternative media will not be delivered to your house in
the morning paper and will not be displayed on your television.
Mainstream media is “pushed” to the public every minute.
Alternative views are heard and read only when someone takes
the initiative to find alternate news and views.
I encourage each of you to take a few minutes every day,
how about taking as much time as it takes to read the newspaper,
and seek alternative views. The balance is out there. You
just have to take the time to find it.
Speak out against mainstream media bias. Several organizations
will help you do this and it works. For example, the Washington
Post recently suggested that Bush would have won the election
if a recount had been allowed. As we know, this is not true.
A letter and phone campaign forced the Post to retract their
statement and issue a correction. Efforts to keep the media
honest have the potential to change the media. The conservatives
clearly agree and are engaged in similar campaigns to stop
what they view as "liberal media."
I teach several policy related courses. I ask my students
to think through policy choices and try to imagine the eventual
consequences of a particular policy choice. I believe we
are smart enough to think through a problem and make some
predictions about the end result of our choices.
I even give the government credit for being able to think
through a problem in such a manner. Unfortunately, there
is no indication that this administration is willing to act
in ways that benefit all people. They fully realize the negative
impacts of their policies, and examine who will gain and
lose, before acting in ways that benefit certain interests.
The people pulling Bush’s strings are frighteningly good
at what they do.
When given all the information, you are smart enough to
know the truth. But do not expect to be given this information.
You will have to find it. After reviewing alternative sources
for information you will find that you are becoming a more
critical, and intelligent, consumer of mainstream media.
Seek the truth and act on your convictions.
Alternative Media on the
The following links include alternative media, world media
and political sites. The sites include news, opinion, parody
and humor. Many of the sites are critical of George W. Bush
and his administration. Other sites specifically address
9/11 or Iraq. I encourage you to look through these websites
and to seek alternative sources for information, news, and
Watch - http://www.zmag.org/altmediawatch.htm
AlterNet - http://www.alternet.org/
American Friends Service Committee - http://www.afsc.org/
American Prospect - http://www.prospect.org/
AntiWar.com - http://www.antiwar.com/
BBC Americas - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/
BuzzFlash - http://www.buzzflash.com/
Bookmarks for a Better World - http://www.betterworldlinks.org/irak.htm
Center for Investigative Reporting - http://www.muckraker.org/
Noam Chomsky archive - http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive
Citizens for Legitimate
Government - http://www.legitgov.org/peaceprotests.html
CounterPunch - http://www.counterpunch.org/
Crimes of War Project - http://www.crimesofwar.org/
Cursor - http://www.cursor.org/
and Accuracy in Reporting - http://www.fair.org/
FAIR: Media Views - http://www.fair.org/views.html
in Focus - http://www.fpif.org/
Free Speech Radio
News - http://www.fsrn.org/
Free Speech TV
Global Exchange - http://www.globalexchange.org/
Guardian Unlimited - http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/
Network - http://gnn.tv/
Media Center - http://indymedia.org/
IMC New Mexico
Institute for Policy Studies - http://www.ips-dc.org/
Institute for Public Accuracy - http://www.accuracy.org/
International Answer - http://www.internationalanswer.org/
In These Times - http://www.inthesetimes.com/
Iraq Journal - http://iraqjournal.org/
Iraq Peace Team
JournalismNet - http://www.journalismnet.com/
Konscious.com - http://www.konscious.com/main.html
Robert McChesney - http://www.robertmcchesney.com/articles.html
Media and Peace Institute - http://www.mediapeace.org/
MediaLens - http://www.medialens.org
Media Transparency - http://www.mediatransparency.org/
Media Workers Against War - http://www.mwaw.org/
Michael Moore - http://michaelmoore.com/
MoveOn - http://moveon.org/
The Nation - http://www.thenation.com/
Nonviolence.org - http://www.nonviolence.org/iraq/
Not in Our Name - http://www.notinourname.net/
One World - http://www.oneworld.net/
The Onion - http://www.theonion.com/
Pacifica Radio - http://www.pacifica.org/
Peace News - http://www.peacenews.info/
John Pilger - http://pilger.carlton.com/
Poison Kitchen - http://www.poisonkitchen.com/
Progressive Magazine - http://www.progressive.org/
Progressive Media Project - http://www.progressive.org/mediaproj.htm
Progressive Review - http://www.prorev.com/
Project Censored - http://www.projectcensored.org/
Ted Rall - http://www.tedrall.com/
Reporters Without Borders - http://www.rsf.org/
Sept. 11 Web Community - http://webselforganization.com/example.html
Smirking Chimp - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/
Stop The War Coalition - http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
This Modern World - http://www.thismodernworld.com/
TomPaine.com - http://Tompaine.com
True Majority - http://truemajority.com/
Truthout - http://www.truthout.org/
United for Peace - http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
Utne Reader - http://www.utne.com/
Voices in the Wilderness - http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/
VoteNoWar - http://www.votenowar.org/
WhiteHouse.org - http://whitehouse.org/
World Newspapers - http://www.world-newspapers.com/
Working for Change - http://workingforchange.com/
Howard Zinn - http://www.howardzinn.org/
ZNet - http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm
ZMag: Chomsky archive - http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm