I just don't see the relevance to the issue at hand at all.
Define the issue, and what do you see as being irrelevant?
The issue, to put it succinctly, is if there is any limitation to the powers of the TSA to search, question, and detain the public without probable cause, exigent circumstances, or a warrant.
The examples of TSA behavior so far seem credible enough, as they are consistent with my own experience and observations.
So there can be no question of bias or integrity in reporting, here's a primary source we can accept to be true:
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/TSA.Switzer_Decl_attachments_1_2_and_3_0.pdf
The TSA's own policy seems to state that they will comply with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Specifically, that once someone consents to a search, they may not revoke that consent. However, I do not think that if a secondary search is requested, and the subject of the search does not give consent, I can see any legal basis for such a search to be conducted anyway. The TSA's position is that once the "screening process" has begun, consent is implied for any search they see fit, of anything they want.
One question I can not find an answer to is if travelers are compelled to be questioned if detained.
The TSA's argument that a terrorist may escape if they are not compelled to a search is incredulous. The TSA's mandate is to prevent hazards from being brought aboard aircraft, which in the case of someone refusing a search, has already been accomplished. The government can not use the fact that one does not consent to a search as reason to justify additional searches anywhere else that I am aware of, and doubtlessly, this has meant that criminals and terrorists have evaded detection in the past.
Keep in mind, these TSA policies are not limited to airports - that is just where they are most common. The TSA claims these powers at all transportation facilities - train stations, bus stops, trains, car ferries, etc.
