I'm for it.
We kill them all the time. We blow them up with smart bombs. We kill them with targeted missile strikes.
What's the difference between that and the killing of OBL? Maybe you don't like either. Then you're completely consistent, and I respect that.
But if you're like me (or John Kerry or Barack Obama or Howard Dean) and you have been arguing for years that the stupidly named "War on Terror" is a surgical battle where we take out strategic leaders, disrupt training camps, work with allies, and conduct raids with special forces or quietly in concert with our Arab allies, then you're probably fine with all of that.
Bush and Cheney thought we should invade random countries with mean guys and....yeah they didn't have a second thought.
Democrats (many) have long argued that this was a foolish distraction, and that we should deal with terrorism on a case by case basis with surgical precision.
It's not perfect, but it's our current policy. That's right: our policy is to blow up terrorists. To "assassinate" them. Whether or not that jives with international law isn't important, because international law is generally a farce. And I say that as someone who wants to strengthen international law and other human rights protections.
So there you have it. We kill terrorists. OBL isn't any different than the random Al Qaeda leader that we blew up 2 months ago (probably) and you never even heard about it. If you don't think that's the right approach and that we should arrest these folks (somehow), then I respect your consistency and the way you stick to your principles in the face of overwhelming evidence that they lead you into an impractical area. You're kind of being like a libertarian. Good for you.
But spare me the sermons.
PS: If someone can be captured, then by all means, capture them. If a mass murder MIGHT be able to be captured, but it's pretty risky, and blowing him up or shooting him in the head is less messy, then let's just do that and move on with our lives having fed some fish.