Roscoe,
I am no legal scholar. I just performed a small exercise with an easily read document. I find no instance wherein that "any person of the world" is afforded any rights in the US, let alone outside the US.
Preamble below
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I guess you think "we the people" is anybody who happens to be here, or there, or anywhere. To whom do these "other people" owe allegiance?
"Article. IV.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. "
Here we have "Citizens of the United States" with, uh-oh, immunities and priveldeges. I do not see anything about non-citizens.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
For the Gitmo boys, I see only a right for people (citizens) to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. Non-Americans engaged in combat in Afghanistan is not a criminal matter.
It seems clear enough; if we are going to hold them they are POWs, whether we like it or not. Bush et al. made up 'enemy combatants' out of whole cloth, just like he is trying an end run around the constitution by claiming there is no federal court jurisdiction over Guantanamo. It seems to me that this is exactly the type of situation that the Bill of Rights was written up to deal with - gross overextension of federal power.
The US Constitution does not convey any rights or priveledges to non-citizens. Misguided "living document" revisionists have "read" this crap into case law. Gitmo is not in the US. The combatants operate under no uniform or flag. If anyone is end-running the US Constitution, it is you by expanding US Law to include non-citizen enemy combatants.