"First of all, the point is, they weren't even held for more than perfunctory questioning."
How do you actually know it was perfunctory?

Ok, let's say Mary Anne is in charge. How would you do it?

OK, let's say the police are in charge, like maybe NYPD, who would be a lot less likely to listen to anyone in Washington. Here's how they do it. They interview potential witnesses or suspects, which would be anyone who knows a known suspect or may have had contact with him, in a place that is obviously their turf, each one alone or possibly with a lawyer, if the interviewee so requests. They make sure that the people being interviewed are safe, but are available for follow-up questioning. The interview is thorough, and is prepared ahead of time by research that establishes as much information as possible about the interviewee, so as to enable the interviewers to detect inconsistencies between responses and known facts.

Questioning at the airport on the date of departure, when there are scores of people to evaluate, mere days after the crime was committed, doesn't allow for the kind of background checking necessary. Letting them all fly off to a country with which we have no extradition treaty allows for no realistic expectation of follow-up questioning.

"Second, they were allowed to fly around in special airplanes on days when planes carrying freaking donated organs for transplants were grounded."
So what your point?
How are donated organs usually flown- commerical flights? They probably would have a high priority on commerical flights. No, commerical flights- no organs flown. Probably wouldn't make much sense to routinely fly organs on miltary flights. Though I guess that the Saudis were flown on miltary flights. It seems to be that this is mostly a problem with dealing with govt bureaucracies. I would guess that organs are a commerical business. I would guess that there are rules against using miltary flights for any commerical business. That's how bureaucracies work- good or logic isn't important, it is what the laws or regs allow.
You can't say this is the President's fault, he didn't have the choice of picking between organs being flown or Saudis being flown. Basically it's an augument that Saudis were given special treatment. I think the Saudi should have been something the State dept should have focused it's attention on. I'm sure the State dept can easily arrange with the miltary, a miltary flight- anyone in the miltary could probably fiqure out how to get this done. If the organ shipper had the proper contact with the miltary and there happen to be a miltary flight going at right time and destination, then the organ donor *might* have been able to hike a ride.
I'm just guessing- you got any specific info?

READ THE ARTICLES. READ THE ARTICLES. Oh, and by the way, READ THE ARTICLES. A short, selective recap of their salient points pertinent to your ramble, above:

EVERYTHING WAS GROUNDED. Including all commerial flights. Including all charter and private planes. Including the victims' families. Including medical emergencies. Except for the family of Osama bin Laden and other Saudis who were on somebody's "kid gloves" list.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE SAUDI FLIGHTS. Somebody very high up obviously did. Do you think that a Saudi prince could get a former oil company executive who happens to be President of the United States on the phone? Or maybe a Vice-President? No, of course you don't.

THE ORGANS WERE ALREADY HARVESTED, AND HAVE A VERY SHORT SHELF LIFE. Not only that, but disembodied human organs pose no security risk to anyone. That, and the obvious humanitarian angle, were the reasons I included the example.

The same may have been able to be said about the Saudis, but they were spirited away so quickly that no one will ever really know.

"Third, you stated that we would want to land our military in another country to defend Americans from the locals in the event that Americans committed an atrocity in a foreign land. Doyyy. It only works that way in Westerns. (It's not unreasonable to expect a nation to take some care of its foreign visitors in extreme circumstances.)"

Keyword is "want", not "would". We would "want" if we couldn't get assurances that Americans would be adequately protected.
I'm sure State dept would have assured the Saudi govt that it was taking adequate measures to ensure these people were protected.
And this is not something done only in Westerns.

The Cavalry only rides to the rescue in the Westerns, where the glass is candy and the bullets are fake. In real life, military intervention to protect foreign nationals has a very poor success rate, unless the civilians are clustered together in a known area.

Proper precautions and assurances are normal ways of doing things. Were they offered, and rejected by the Saudis? Who knows? The Saudis certainly got their way -- all of it.

I apologize for assuming that, when you said "want" to send in the military, you didn't mean "would". The two have been smudged together in actual practice lately. Please forgive my confusion.

"Fourth, why were people with possible connections given a buy while others without connections got thrown in lockup for weeks and months?"

I don't know, I would need some details. But as a wild guess, is it because Bush is EVIL?

LOLOL

When you don't have an answer, try to label me with something I have never said. Points for a Nice Try at distraction and dissembly.

Maybe it's because this Administration plays by different rules where its friends and associates are concerned. Oh, but that couldn't be, could it?

Been duck hunting lately?

"Fifth, no one said they had committed any crime whatsoever. It is good police practice to keep people who may be material witnesses from leaving the country during the investigation until such time as they have been thoroughly interviewed. "

Ok, but why do you suspect these family members were material witnesses? Do you think it's logical, if they had knowledge about 911 that they would be in America?
And if they don't offer any information, how are you going to get this information? Do you think they wouldn't think of getting a lawyer? Would you deny them this right? What would a lawyer tell you?

Family are always questioned. So are co-workers. So are neighbors. You go from the inner circle to the outer reaches and from the known to the suspected to the unknown when gathering information.

If they had knowledge about 911, you think they wouldn't be in America? For heaven's sake, why? Using that reasoning, one can't justify any of the post-911 detentions of people with visas from Middle Eastern nations, because, if they had knowledge of terrorist activities, they wouldn't be in America.

Apparently the family had good enough connections to have high-level security measures waived just for them; such an aura of privilege can also bestow a belief that one is untouchable. People with a sense of invulnerability can be very chatty sometimes, if handled properly.

Of course they would think of getting a lawyer. Of course they should have legal council if they request it. Police have effectively questioned people with lawyers before. They have even uncovered hidden details. And without resorting to rubber hoses and electric shocks. [sarc]Can you believe it????[/sarc] It's called "skilled police work". But it takes time. So you're held for questioning. Your lawyer appeals for your release. You need to get a court date and a docket number. There's the usual argument about "either charge him or kick him". Meanwhile, the police have valuable time to use for interviewing.

If the US authorities had decided to play diplomacy poker (bureaucracy aces high), the "detention for questioning" card could have been played for weeks, anyway. Why did our people just fold?

Incidentally, I find it very amusing that you are so concerned about the rights of Osama bin Laden's family to see their lawyers. How about extending some of that concern to other foreign nationals being held without lawyers?

"Sixth, it wasn't up to the Saudis to call the shots. 911 was an offense against American law that killed American citizens and guests and detroyed American property. Their citizens committed the crimes, and one of the masterminds had family in this country that may have had important information. But instead of holding them and questioning them carefully, they flew away. Why?"

I think that OLB had a pool of people he could choose from, and I think he deliberately chose people from Saudi Arabia.
I think it's reasonable that OLB would want to damage the US/Saudi relationship. I think he also liked the symbolism.

Thank you for that psychological profile of Osama bin Laden's terrorist aesthetic.

That still doesn't explain the plane out of Boston, days after major crimes were committed, carrying a slew of potential witnesses flown the coup forever.

I realize that you will never, ever admit that the actions of the Bush Administration are ever anything less than brilliant, noble, good, true and beautiful. Do try to take off the rose-colored glasses once in a while.

This was bad.

I have banged my head against the brick wall that you have constructed in your mind for the last time on this subject.