Actually the first ammendment does apply. Radio stations are companies that have to operate within a certain governance because of their lisence to use public airwaves.
Did they violate free speech within that context? I think they probably did, but there will be no way to stop them from doing so, as the governance of the issue is weak. They may not say what they will and kill whatever speech that they don't like. They are controlled through their usage of public airwaves and must provide accountablility.
If someone wants to do them damage (and i think we should) for what happened they should bring complaints of misuse of public airwaves, and accusations of a relationship with a special interest group that has definite ties to terrorists organizations. CAIR has had definite ties to those type organizations and that is without a doubt indisputable.
As to the muslim religion producing terrorism? Out of 80 wars taking place world wide muslim radicals are involved in 79. That should be enough proof for any logical or reasonable person to conclude that there is definitely a tie to the religion and terrorism. There are 1 billion muslims alive today. 1/10th of the muslims alive today are radical. That means that 100,000,000 of them are radical and hate the west, isreal, and any other modern influence in their spheres of influence.
The government's response under Bush has been to try to define this narrow line of "all muslims are good, only a select few would do anything bad," allthe while making it sound like the threat posed in this war on terrorism is just a random act of any potential person; that is why grandma is being searched at the airport and the 18-35 year old middle eastern man goes through.
The government's response under clinton was to allow us to be set up for all this through trying to deal with these attacks as a police issue instead of an issue of an act of war. Clinton was supporting the muslim side of Bosnia etc. He was along side of the people who were supplying the radicals in europe, al quaeda. We said it then, and now it is being said in a wider format of some media outlets.
The real deal is as it stands. Muslim radicals are behind almost every aspect of terrorism in our world today, and are behind every act of international terrorism today. In the past it was radical socialists/communists that did these acts of terror to destablize countries and push them toward socialism/communism via government breakdown and the breakdown of law and order. Today it is the muslim who has been on a hundreds of years old war against the west. This is just the way it is. They conquered countries in the middle east and africa that were formally Christian and have been in a state of war since then. Every one of them was behind Hitler and the Nazi's over the rabid hatred of Jews.
We have all this time been in a war that we haven't fought until it stepped down into our world. We will only win this war when we stop the Bull-sh%t over trying to placate the muslims and demand that they get out ahead of the curve and stop this type thing. If it is really an issue of their religion being hijacked then let us see them prove it by how they go to war against the muslim leadership who supports it.
The only single event of "fragging" we have had against our troops in this war has been that of a muslim soldier killing his fellow soldiers over Islam. In the Vietnam era we had hundreds, maybe even thousands of "fraggings" none of which had to do with anything but people wanting to kill their leaders in the hope of getting out of the war. This time it was a muslim troop who saw this as a war against Islam and chose which side he was going to be on.
We need to be honest and admit this is a war against Islam, but not Islam in general, Islam in as far as it allows itself to be guided and directed by radicals. This problem today is that Islam is hijacked by the radicals and we need to understand that all through history this was the case. It is completely reasonable and feasable to understand that Islam may not be able to operate without being led by the radicals. There may be no such thing as a "peaceful Islam" in that Islam does not mean "peace" as it has been reported, but, means submission.
Our national approach should be to war with enemies both within and without. That includes any religion that cannot keep itself from killing the innocent. That is the only way to see things if we expect to win this war.
The only point I would take issue with is that most fraggings in Nam were by soldiers hoping to 'survive' their tour of duty. We lost our entire local chain of command one day. Fortunately they were relieved of duty by CID before the fraggings would have started.
Otherwise, I agree. I am still waiting to see how the 'peaceful' religion of Islam polices its 'terrorist' element.
This is an excellent idea, however I disagree that this is not a war against Islam. That is precisely what it is.