I agree that the due process language is not the best metaphor when we are dealing with specific procedures in state-to-state or state-to-outside-terrorist relations, but that does not mean that the principles underlying our specific processes are irrelevant.
We are bombing civilians because they may be in a supportive function to local Taliban government officials who in turn are supporting top Taliban leadership who have some undetermined relationship to Bin Laden who sponsored in some undetermined way the terrorism involved on September 11.
Justifying the deaths of those initial civilians gets pretty dicy with such a string of guilt by association. I'd actually be pretty comfortable with a direct bombing of Bin Laden based on the evidence so far (including his own statements) given his refusal to turn himself over when accused - another requirement of due process on the defendant side - but jumping that to the Taliban leadership more generally with the vagueness of evidence presented so far is wrong by any principled application of justice to what's involved here.
One big difference between Pearl Harbor and Sept 11 is that the Japanese proudly took credit for the former, so questions of evidence to justify a response was irrelevant. That's not the case here and the refusal of the US government to reveal any information directly connecting Bin Laden to the act means they probably don't have any yet. Now, his sponsorship of the Al Quaeda network is still probably justification enough for general retaliation, as I said, but that's a pretty piss-poor basis for killing a bunch of Afghanis who are three or four degrees of separation from any such sponsorship.
-- Nathan Newman