But going back to the original question I was responding to, would I not be correct that the rights of non-citizens, for the purpose of airport screening, are protected by the Bill of Rights, rather than the 14th?

The problem is that the TSA *can* [get others to] prosecute you if you *do* answer the questions. If your answers to the questions lead them to the fact that you may be carrying drugs, or worse, a pirated movie, you can be arrested, prosecuted, and the answers to these questions (or search that came as a result of your answers) *will* be used against you. This is the whole point of the right to remain silent, and why nobody should respond to questions other than your name, DOB, and gender.

^^^

To the extent that airport screening is conducted by the federal government, yes, in that the 4th and 5th Amendments act directly on the federal government. However, if it was a state or municipal screening authority, it would still be the 4th and 5th Amendments, as selectively incorporated through the 14th Amendment, that constrains unconstitutional state and municipal government actions.

I'm not a constitutional scholar either, but from my reading that does not prove your point. If it were so, any visitor wouldn't require a visa to to enter the USA, nor would they ever be able to be deported, or could anyone be considered an illegal alien.

In fact, "treaties"/laws are the how relations between countries are to be. The reasoning behind my original statement "You have the rights your country's behavior has earned".

How many domestic flights have been taken over by a US Citizen for hi-jacking, terrorism, or attack?

I still state that a single person's attempt, without a firearm, to enter a cockpit today will fail.

Bombs? Still a threat but we've really only moved the detonation location to the queue.

I don't follow. The various amendments we're talking about (specifically the 1st, 4th, and 5th) have nothing to do with any of those things. They merely restrict what the government can do. Nowhere does it give an exception that allows the government to do those things for others legally within our borders. The question of whether people illegally in our borders have those rights is a much more complex one.

To be fair ... that may be an important change. A bomb detonated aboard an aircraft may kill those on board. It may also kill folks (and damage structures) on the ground below, if the detonation causes the aircraft to crash.

Sure, detonating a bomb near the security queue will still cause plenty of damage and injuries. On the whole, though, I think this damage would be less than that from a detonation aboard an aircraft in flight.

I don't think you are wrong in your beliefs, but the law does not support all of them. Yes, there are restrictions on whom may enter and remain in the country, but not having the right to enter or stay does not negate your fundamental rights while here (that's why there are very specific procedures that are supposed to be followed when deporting non-citizens). As far as how you are treated at customs checkpoints, that's different: you are not yet in the United States, a big difference.

1. Thanks, dialog with compromise is always the best kind.
2. Yes, I agree there are fundamental rights granted to NON-US.
3. However, I believe that we, the electorate, can have congress/president direct the State Department to add additional requirement's to visa's regarding air travel as we do so now for employment or length of stay, etc.

Agreed. But, I think, there would be more cost effective and less intrusive ways to accomplish that single purpose.

That discussion is always worth having.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

I just stumbled into this forum and find this discussion very interesting. While I'm not exactly thrilled with the airport security theatre experience, I think that there is firm legal footing for most of it.

The paragraph below is footnoted in a 1997 court of appeals decision, U.S. v. Aukai. (No. 04-10226, 9th Cir).

"The Supreme Court has not specifically held that airport screening searches are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches.   On three occasions, however, the Supreme Court has suggested that airport screening searches are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches.   See Miller, 520 U.S. at 323, 117 S.Ct. 1295;  Edmond, 531 U.S. at 47-8, 121 S.Ct. 447(“Our holding also does not affect the validity of border searches or searches at places like airports and government buildings, where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute.”);  Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 675 n. 3, 109 S.Ct. 1384 (approving of lower court decisions upholding airport screening searches where there was no reason for suspicion)."

A more interesting question (to me, at least) is the new "Behaviorial Analysis" pilot program, as it is not directly a search for weapons, so is different from physical or electronic screening.

Reading several other posts it seems to me the TSA has the right to detain and transfer you to other agencies for prosecution and any and all information gather by them can be submitted as evidence.

If this is correct I would definitely conclude that I have 5th amendment rights and also the right to an attorney during that interrogation.

I don't know what you're reading, but that's absolutely wrong. TSOs are not LEOs and have absolutely no legal power to detain anyone.

They have just as much power to provide information to another agency as any other citizen. And not an iota more.

There is a posting referencing a statute regarding make false statements to a TSA agent is an offense subject to fines and imprisonment.

I agree LEO's will make the arrest. Instead of "right" let's say TSA has the a "greater likelyhood" to make a serious accusations without significant liability to cause you to be detained.

Do you agree the TSA agent/federal employee is conducting an interrogation and with felony consequences? If so, I would submit, you can subjected to a long road of legal expenses and irreparable harm.