Seems to be the relevant quotation, reading,
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The first part simply defines the persons, showing that any person born or naturalized, or 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof', meaning, as has been interpreted, on US soil at the time of the event, are entitled to the protections.
By no consideration can these people be believed to be 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' and only one is 'born'. Since the legal term 'jurisdiction' refers to an area or collection of people to whom a particular court has authority, we need to understand what the 'jurisdiction' of the US means.
Since Afghanistan is a sovereign nation, the US has no jurisdiction there. This was established by supreme court decisions after WWII in Germany, where the court ruled that captured POWs, war criminals, and illegal combatants are not under US jurisdiction, as they were captured externally to the US for crimes committed externally to the US. Had these committed crimes on US soil for which they were to be tried, they would be protected putatively by the fourteenth amendment.
The fourteenth amendment does, of course, incorporate the first ten, by tradition, meaning that, despite that the first reads 'Congress shall make no law', the amendment applies to any entity in the country.
Oddly enough, the fifth reads more closely for your side of the argument, which language has 'person' rather than 'citizen', but the foruteenth supercedes, and, even before the fourteenth, 'person' had been established to mean 'citizen'. Also, 'land and naval forces' are specifically exempt in the fifth, meaning that, since these people were captured as part of a military operation and are combatants, they have no recourse in the fifth, anyway...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As to baggage searches, you would be right if they were not *mandate* at this point by the FAA. The FAA is a federal agency; it's ability to mandate searches is proscribed by the fourth amendment quite clearly: The right of the people to be secure in their persons or property from unreasonable search and seizure etc...
It goes on to discuss 'due process', which the supreme court has recently ruled, in the case of drug searches on the highway, does not cover random searches, as there is no due process as defined by the fourth: particularly describing the articles to be searched for and the place of search. Since there is no warrant, there can be no search mandated by a federal government.
As to the idea that one enters a contract, such ideas are only valid as long as the athority performing the search is strictly corporate and as long as the corporate authority does not constitute a monopoly. In the case of airlines, for expedience, the second part has been let slide, but the first part has officially been violated.
Also, harking back to the fourteenth, remember that 'equal protection under the law' is not strictly provided by pseudorandom searches. In other words, since those searched lose time and may suffer humiliation, it can be construed that there is a cost imposed by this law, thewhich has legal precedence. Given that, random searches randomly penalise people, which is clearly not 'equal protection'. There is also legal precedence for this train of thought.
I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]