I'm mostly with you, Gil. Let's say the definition of terrorists is that they target random innocent people, whereas the United States targets people we consider to be guilty -- but then, oops, take down a bunch of unequivocally innocent people along with them. The supposed moral difference centers around who, specifically, is targeted. But to the loved ones of dead innocents, I'm not sure the distinction is all that comforting.
For that matter, I'm not comfortable with killing even the suspected guilty person without benefit of due process. I realize the rules for U.S. citizens are different than those applying to a suspect who is a non-citizen and a presumed enemy of the state. Yet the moral underpinnings still apply: Due process is designed to minimize the risk of mistakes and injustices.
I, for one, was not celebrating when Osama bin Laden was killed. I'm glad he was captured. I understood the rationale for killing him and didn't condemn those who did it. But I wasn't saying hooray, either.
But then, I'm against capital punishment, even of unquestionably guilty heinous criminals. Even, I would hope, if, God forbid, the victims ever included a loved one of mine. I simply think killing is wrong and nobody should ever do it except in clear-cut and urgent cases requiring immediate self-defense.