Originally Posted by studentff
Who do you think should have the authority to limit the privilege to fly (domestically in the US, since you mention the Constitution) on a commercial airline? The airline? The TSA? The DHS? Courts? Law enforcement?
If any (other than the airline), what due process do you think should be necessary to restrict that privilege? Conviction by a jury? Warrant from a judge? Arbitrary government decision to put passenger on a secret no-fly blacklist?
On point one, all of the parties you mentioned do and should have the authority to limit the privilege to fly.
On point two, due process means whatever process is reasonable under the circumstances. You obviously cannot demand a jury trial before a plane can take off without you if you've been denied boarding. Assuming that there IS some due process argument, a decision by an official on the spot that somebody is suspicious is more than enough to take a passenger off a plane. If you later prove that decision was based on something other than reasonable discretion, you can sue. Bringing up due process is a red herring.
Either way, I have a hard time understanding the hysteria over answering 5-10 minutes worth of questioning. If the experiment proves worthless, it will be scrapped. And yes, I would rather have the government with all its flaws making that decision than a bunch of frequent flyers (including myself) with their own self interest clouding their judgment.