I'm not convinced that a trial would be needed or justified. He's a worldwide known, self-acknowledged terrorist, essentially a militant outlaw. A trial would be a formality, at the very best. However, given that we've engaged in military action against him and his organization, that well removes him from criminal status, and with that he loses all expectations of a trial.
And the comparison to Nazis doesn't hold at all. Trials were given for captured Nazis, not those that we killed in the course of the war. The decision to kill instead of risk capturing isn't one that I have a real problem with. He supposedly resisted anyway. I honestly have far more of an issue with us holding prisoners in military prisons with no charges, evidence, or trials than I would ever have with us killing the leader of a terrorist organization.
I don't see how anything that transpired about the killing itself is in any way a negative reflection of Western ethics.
He's world-known terrorist because the media portrays the BS story and people believe this rhetoric. Just because it's on the talky box, doesn't mean it's the truth.
Once again, the only argument people have to pose is what they read in the media, therefore I digress from the topic.
What I'd like to know is, who died and made us the police of the world?