"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.
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.