One possible bin Laden capture scenario is a Taliban leader succumbing to the lure of the U.S.' $25 million reward. Is everyone OK with funding these tyrants? Theoretically, couldn't anyone take over a weak nation, harbor an internationally-feared terrorist, wait for a rich country to put up the reward, and then turn him in for a solid profit? Some would see that as sound investing.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/americas_new_war/ap_laden11152001.htm
Another question that's bugging me: The right is blasting those who question U.S. policy in the Middle East for being blame-America. But think of it this way: If I intentionally stomp on your toe and you shoot my brother, you are evil and I will justifiably take revenge. But I was still a moron for stomping on your toe. And it would be odd of me to talk about a subsequent confrontation between us as "good versus evil" and a valiant struggle to protect my "way of life." Your awful evil doesn't make me really darn good. I'm still subject to answer for my earlier actions, and to say that is different than blaming me for the shooting.