A key difference between bin Laden and other terrorists is not his degree of fanaticism or intelligence, although he has dramatically demonstrated both -- but rather having the financial resources to provide a safe haven for training terrorists and making worldwide plans. Thus the most effective response would be to find and confiscate all of his money, which then could be used to compensate the many victims of his acts.  And since bin Laden likely promised significant financial rewards to the families of those who carried out the attacks yesterday -- and previously -- any and all funds he has dispersed over the last 10 years should likewise be traced and recovered.  And finally, since you can't hide millions  under a mattress in Afghanistan -- much less effectively use that money without the cooperation of international banking channels-- the people, organizations, and countries that have allowed him to finance his operations should be treated as harboring terrorism as well.
    In short, while swiftly eliminating bin Laden would give immense satisfaction, since he undoubtedly has plans to disperse and devolve his organization and resources in the event of his death, eliminating his financial fortune would be far more effective first step....

    There are at least three ways to follow-the-money, i.e. every bank in the world could be told that if they knew - or should have known - they were helping bin Laden or any other terrorists in any way, they will be treated as terrorist as well. This should precipitate a frantic and through search of their records. Second, attention should be focused on any large payments following terrorist attacks. And third, attention should be focused on any payments made to families or relatives of any terrorists in the last 20 years. That is, while the children shouldn't suffer for the sins of their father, neither should they benefit from the sins of their father. Indeed, allowing any financial reward for terrorists acts is not only morally wrong, it is highly counter-productive.

    An article in the National Law Journal (dated 9/17/01) discusses a case where parents decided to sue Iran for financing a terrorist group that set off a bomb that killed their daughter in 1995. Since governments are immune to legal action, they asked Congress to pass a law permitting lawsuits against countries designated as sponsors of terrorism. After Congress did so in 1996, Iran refused to participate in the trial, and the court awarded the parents $247 million. When the parents tried to collect by seizing Iranian assets in the US, they found that such assets were immune from seizure. And when they went back to Congress for another law, the Clinton administration -- and others -- were afraid that removing this immunity would place American assets at risk in other countries....
    So... Congress passed a law giving $247 million to the parents from the US Treasury! Subsequently other victims (led of course by plaintiff's attorneys!) followed this lead and have also received $100's of millions in judgments from the US. The fear is/was foreign courts would allow their citizens to sue the US for funding past acts (and Iran passed a law to allow its citizens to file such suits for "US interference" since 1953). But, as the article points out, it is hard to justify these payments as deterring terrorism... and hard to justify putting these matters in the hands of plaintiff's attorneys rather than the government!
    But at least 3 options remain:
        First, we could still go against bin Laden since he is an individual and not a country (unless "excellent" lawyers have advised him to finance terrorism via Iran or another government, etc..);
        Second, we could just get better lawyers and make new law (maybe at the World Court) to do what is right..... or
        Third, we could have a "Delta Force" of accountants and computer hackers with stealth computers simply extinguish bin Laden's assets with extreme prejudice...