That's absurd, since the constitution has provisions that plainly describe what the US government is and isn't allowed to do with regard to foreign nations. For example, the US constitution clearly states that the US government is forbidden to carry out prolonged military operations in other nations without a congressionally approved declaration of war. This means that under the US constitution, any person in the world at least has the right not to be bombed at the whim of the US executive branch with absolutely no review.
First, the Constitution doesn't really say that, at least not with the gloss you're giving it. Second, you're confused about who holds the right and what the right protects. The fact that Congress has the right to declare war does not mean you have the right not to be bombed on a presidential whim. The right protects the separation of powers within the U.S. government, not the lives of foreigners. It's Congress who holds the right as against the President, not foreigners.
"The fact that Congress has the right to declare war does not mean you have the right not to be bombed on a presidential whim. The right protects the separation of powers within the U.S. government, not the lives of foreigners. It's Congress who holds the right as against the President, not foreigners."
Now you're just playing semantic games. Who owns the 'right' in this case--non-US citizens to not be bombed or congress to prevent their bombing--is completely subjective. The fact is that prolonged military operations without congressional approval are constitutionally forbidden. So whether the right is explicit or de facto, it does it exist. You seem to want to interpret every aspect of the constitution with rabid ethnocentrism, but most of the actual authors of the document had a much broader perspective on humanity.
