Let me dust off my EOD cap:
Osama bin Laden was a freedom fighter in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation during the 1980s. Often referred to as Russia's Vietnam, CIA assets cultivated multiple people while the whole incident was underway. We equipped them with everything from C4 to stinger missiles, along with a lot of clandestine training. Osama was one such recipient of said training and being the son of a well connected Saudi family, was poised to be one of the more influential agents of the United States in theaters such as Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Iraq, and the Middle East in general.
Fast forward to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and the subsequent abandonment by the US of all operating assets in the AO, Osama felt betrayed by the pledges made by his handlers. He then took that highly effective training and started a pretty convincing campaign of revenge against the US. His fatwa, if any of you have read it, is not a rambling document of hate (unlike the Unibomber) but is coherent with articulate and legitimate gripes against US geopolitical policies.
Oddly, after his implication in 9-11, I would have thought the US would have been more interested in a live capture so this infamous individual would be forced to stand trial for his alleged crimes. But we killed him instead. If anyone recalls, the Taliban offered to turn him over to America if we had incriminating evidence. The US Constitution has this interesting capability charged to Congress about issuing Letters of Marque, which is exactly what should have happened following 9-11. However, it didn't, and we killed the only person that knows the extent of our intelligence community's involvement in the Middle East.
Osama bin Laden died because he knew too much about our intelligence capabilities in the Middle East and possibly enough that if put on trial, he could have exposed that infrastructure. I don't think it would have been pretty.