Actually, the US Constitution is much broader in terms of protecting individuals then I think you realize. The Constitution is specific when it intends to reserve rights only for citizens, otherwise it uses the word Persons.

See perhaps most recently _Boumediene v. Bush_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

Namely that these enemy combatants do have rights under the Constitution in this case the right to a habeas petition.

The other relevant historic case-law here is _Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins "these provisions [the Constitution] are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction."

How we choose to act in the absence of treaties or guidelines says a lot more about us than it does about inalienable human rights.

Actually, at least the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does apply to them.

Unless the United Nations finds it inconvenient:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Article 29(3)

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.