{"id":6949,"date":"2010-04-13T08:54:49","date_gmt":"2010-04-13T16:54:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=6949"},"modified":"2010-04-13T12:47:53","modified_gmt":"2010-04-13T20:47:53","slug":"awlaki-mania-the-rising-media-hysteria-over-anwar-al-awlaki","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2010\/04\/13\/awlaki-mania-the-rising-media-hysteria-over-anwar-al-awlaki\/","title":{"rendered":"Awlaki-Mania: The Rising Media Hysteria Over the New Mexico Cleric"},"content":{"rendered":"

Anwar al-Awlaki certainly makes for an interesting topic of conversation. The New Mexico-born cleric has not only spent the past few years as a vigorously outspoken critic of US foreign policy in the Middle East but has used the Internet quite successfully to get his message out, and it seems a message with more than a little currency in the invasion-weary Arabian Peninsula.
\n
\nBut Awlaki’s real claim to fame, at least recent fame, comes from an announcement last week that President Barack Obama had made Awlaki the first American citizen to officially grace the CIA’s assassination list<\/a>.
\n
\nThe reasons for Awlaki’s impending assassination are vague, to say the least. Though officials have repeatedly accused Awlaki of being “in al-Qaeda,” he is not currently accused of any crimes and the only specific accusation against him is that he has criticized US foreign policy, and that this has made it easier for al-Qaeda to recruit.
\n
\nSince this isn’t illegal officials insist there is something more that he is doing, but what that something is has never been stated or even really implied. Even Awlaki’s family seems to believe that the criticism is the real issue here, and his father suggested a “deal” whereby Anwar would stop criticizing the US in return for being removed from the assassination list.<\/a>
\n
\nBut the media seems eager to fill in where the government has failed, and make the case for what a bad guy Awlaki really is. The Washington Times<\/span>, light on details as ever, has declared Awlaki “the new bin Laden<\/a>.” The only specific allegations made in the piece are his “thoughtful, well-researched” arguments and that he has potentially inspired other people who later launched attacks.
\n
\nThe accusation would be farcical if there weren’t a grain of truth in there, but Awlaki has become the new bin Laden indeed, at least in that he’s taken over bin Laden’s role as the war party’s bogey-man.
\n
\nThe cleric’s life is now an open book, except for the part where he actually did something to get assassinated. FoxNews.com is running an article which can only be described as a “reverse-birther” story, claiming that Awlaki may have lied about his place of birth on his application to Colorado State University to get additional financial aid<\/a>.
\n
\nThe article cites Ray Fournier, a security official, as saying the US has been looking basically since 9\/11 “tirelessly to find a reason to arrest or detain the American-born cleric.” Added Fourier about the apparently ill-gotten $20,000 grant: “that’s the taxpayers’ money.”
\n
\nThe penalty for lying on this application, however, is a fine of up to $20,000, and up to five years in jail. The penalty is not, and has never been, assassination. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Anwar al-Awlaki certainly makes for an interesting topic of conversation. The New Mexico-born cleric has not only spent the past few years as a vigorously outspoken critic of US foreign policy in the Middle East but has used the Internet quite successfully to get his message out, and it seems a message with more than […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[38],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-6949","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-media"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6949","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6949"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6949\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6955,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6949\/revisions\/6955"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6949"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6949"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6949"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=6949"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}