The impression I've been getting is that the title of this thread is misstated. It should have been "Why aren't we trying to catch Bin Laden" - since every pundit writing in the media seems to be pretty clear that, so far as the US is concerned, the aim is not to catch Bin Laden, but to kill him.

It seems to be suggested that there are some crimes for which trials are not appropriate, but that killing without trial is? Lynch law rules OK?

As for what to call people who are accused of a crime, I've always thought the right way is to call them just that - not "suspected killer" for example, but "man (or woman) charged with/ accused of killing". It's a slight difference, but it places a brake on sliding down a dangerous slope to a situation in which people are required to prove their innocence rather than having someone prove their guilt.