I agree that flying on a commercial airline is not a right (though there is a right to build one's own aircraft and fly it in "common" air space, so long as one obeys reasonable safety restrictions regarding other traffic, but that's another post).
What commercial flying is, however, is a contractual arrangement between the passenger and the airline, and the government has no business interfering with that contract. The entire regime of commercial airline security is a blatant overstepping of the power granted to the government by the U.S. constitution.
How could air travel be safe, without this intrusion, you ask? Um, who has more interest in striking the correct balance between security and convenience than the airlines themselves, and the passengers that choose to contract with them? Some airlines would install a completely laissez-faire regime, and passengers who value convenience (or are easily embarrassed, or whatever) will choose to take that risk. Other airlines will promise colonoscopies and the fearful or very extroverted will select that carrier. Most likely, the airlines will spend lots of money on hiring very good people to staff and lead this increasingly important part of their business, and we would all benefit greatly from the higher quality and choice that would ensue.
Then, the government could focus on doing what it does best, which is bringing the fury of the U.S. armed forces to bear on the states that harbor and support the groups that actually perpetrate these acts, before they are able to organize and implement them.
