Whilst I still believe they were heavy handed and over the top in their reactions, the key part of this is that you were on airport property and NOT in a public space. The fact that the public have access to somewhere does not make it "public" as far as photography is concerned, the owners of the property can make any rules they like for what people can do, whilst on their land. So, they were quite within their rights to ask you to stop taking photographs and leave the airport grounds.
When you went back again, and continued to do something that you now knew was not allowed whilst on their grounds, and had been asked previously to desist, you became a "persistent offender" and they banned you from their premises. Harsh treatment, I agree, but they are within their rights and you are, legally, in the wrong I am afraid. You were being a bit naive to think you could just keep going back there and not get kicked out again at least, or barred from entry in future.
I am not sure how they stand on things like the "hostility to a police officer", that sounds dubious to me but doesn't alter the fact that they have the right to ban you for repeat offending. Your claim of "unlawful commands" is also dubious as they have every right to tell you to stop and leave their premises, especially when you went back again.
I don't understand why they feel that photography ban is necessary, airports over here are happy with photographers, but if that is their policy then you have to accept it, or at least shoot from outside the airports grounds. Had you just accepted that they didn't allow photography the first time you were challenged and left, then that would be it. You wouldn't have been given a one year ban.
Who knows, if you were friendly and apologetic and explained what you were doing properly you might have got a similar response to the one cdiver2 had in a similar situation and, instead of getting yourself banned, been given permission to carry on and a phone number to call whenever you wanted to go back. Attitude makes a huge difference in these situations and being friendly and nice often gets a similar response. From the tone of your original post, "serious corruption of power", "burn it all down and start clean" etc. you come across as somebody who has a chip on their shoulder and isn't going to have a friendly, chatty attitude when challenged. The only person that will hurt is you, I'm afraid.
Your original post makes out that you had your rights trampled on, but you were in the wrong and going back again was a seriously bad move.
Well this is America and we had/have rights.
Feel what you want about my tone, some of us are fine blending in when the time comes. But I think the ACLU would have taken my side had I thought to record it or saved the paperwork.