Outside the scope of authority would be if they were screening in a public, non-sterile area, screening for something other than prohibited items, or screening beyond the proscribed procedures.
So your saying any type of search for a "prohibited item" is okay as long as it's in a private sterile room? I'm sorry, but I really don't agree the end justify the means.
These instances, while humiliating and condemnable if true, do not rise to the level of civil rights violations. If someone you know humiliates you, are they violating your civil rights? You don't just get to make up what you feel are civil rights violations based on emotion. We still use reason in this country, at least some of the time. Seems like a lot more these days, people want to automatically go to the nuclear option first. Someone does something you don't like and they're a racist or bigot or violating peoples civil rights. While you'd probably agree with the ACLU in these instances, how many times would you normally agree with them?
Oh, and I mentioned that two of those 5 instances have already been proven false, yet you managed to lump them back in as "civil rights violations" anyway. It's difficult to have a reasonable discourse on a subject if the other side is unwilling to acknowledge false arguments as false.
I think I'm going to have to ignore these threads from now on. So everyone can now continue to spread rumors and falsehoods as gospel, think with their feelings rather than reason, and generally have a good old time roasting marshmallows at the witch hunt. Sorry to spoil everyone's fun.
Wow ... racist, bigot? You do understand that "Civil Rights" mean more than just what happened in the 1960's? Since you seem to have a issue with that designation, I'll start saying "Rights of the people" if that helps.
Perhaps you can help me understand the reasoning behind the enhanced pat downs and security. You must be actively stopping and or deterring by your presence many real threats, not just Grandpa with a knife he forgot to take out. What additional levels of "stopping and or deterring" can we expect to see in the following twelve months? In other words, please state the expected benefit for the increased inconvenience. If you don't know, it's okay to say I have no idea. Also, please state the number of security failures that resulted in an incident which led to the implementation of the new procedures. Again, it's okay to say you have no idea, if you don't know the answer. It seems to me without specific answers to the questions above you can't make a rational decision concerning the changes.