I'm sure you're a troll, but I'll bite.
I very specifically backed up my assertions with facts, yet you don't even mention the 4th amendment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
What grounds are there for the search? Is getting on a plane a valid basis to suspect illegal behavior? If they don't have probable cause, a government search is illegal, period. If you think this search is OK, in what circumstances does the 4th amendment protect anything? I guarantee the founding fathers didn't intend it to be meaningless.
If you have valid refutation of any signficant point here, I'm glad to debate. If you only have a tired, unfounded repetition of the supposed security benefits (with no evidence of a statistically signficant number of attacks *actually prevented* by the screening), I have no interest in responding.
Beyond that, though, it doesn't matter legally whether the checks are needed for our security (which I don't believe). Now, IF the checks gave material gains in our security, that would be a good starting point for a debate about amending the constitution. Until an amendment passes, however, it's still illegal to search everyone who wants to board a plane.
If your argument is about lives saved, you have to address the reasons why it's OK to spend many $$$s and subject ourselves to indignities to save lives in air travel, but not OK to limit speeds to 55 mph, have more restrictive driving license rules, integrate breathalysers into the ignition system for cars, etc. to save many more lives for fewer $$$s and less loss of liberty in auto travel.
Additionally, I see no reason why flights shouldn't opt in to the travel procedures. If you want to pay an extra $20 to get invasive body scans done before you get on a plane for the supposed peace of mind of knowing everyone else on that plane had them, have at. I don't, and I'll choose the flight that doesn't do it.