The problem, Ari, is that it is outrageous but it is not unreasonable, that is, it is not unreasonable in a constitutional or legal sense. Everything that is offensive is not necessarily unconstitutional. If there is no other way to determine whether there is a bomb in a baby's diaper, it is not unreasonable for the government to inspect that diaper. Especially is that so when the people who complain of that inspection decline to be pictured with modern technology even though there are ways that their privacy can be assured. We know that Muslim fanatics are prepared to use their babies to kill people.
What is the alternative? We cannot have our planes blown out of the sky with 300 people aboard and billions of dollars at stake.
The problem, Ari, is that it is outrageous but it is not unreasonable, that is, it is not unreasonable in a constitutional or legal sense. Everything that is offensive is not necessarily unconstitutional. If there is no other way to determine whether there is a bomb in a baby's diaper, it is not unreasonable for the government to inspect that diaper. Especially is that so when the people who complain of that inspection decline to be pictured with modern technology even though there are ways that their privacy can be assured. We know that Muslim fanatics are prepared to use their babies to kill people. First and foremost, however... before you can even get to the stage you describe, is whether law enforcement/government has any reason to suspect that the baby in question has indeed, a bomb in it's diaper. This is what constitutes the 'probably cause' in the 4th Amendment.
We already have good probably cause to suspect Arab Muslims are terrorists, for instance... due to who conducted 9/11.
Whereas there isn't any cause to suspect that Joe Smith's infant daughter from Topeka, Kansas would be a terrorist.