You are terribly mistaken. The inalienable, human rights recognized (not granted) by the US Constitution are those that all persons intrinsically possess by virtue of their being persons. That's what the Declaration of Independence says (*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.") That's what the Framers said. It's what the courts") have said from the founding of the Republic. It's settled law, and is beyond reasonable dispute.
We don't have rights because we are US citizens, or because some law says we do. We have rights because we are human beings. The US Constitution's purpose is to a) enumerate some (but not all) of those inalienable, human rights, and b) require our government to respect them.
Of course you are perfectly correct that rights accrue to individuals by the grace of God, but so what? I have no quarrel with the basis of the natural rights of man, and I respect the clear manner in which you have enunciated this fundamental principle.
But, in the context of this issue, It is not the job of our nation to guarantee, extend, or protect these rights except as the individuals involved are citizens or the United States. Others need to find ways to protect their natural rights as they see fit, and to the extent that they are even conscious that these rights are theirs by birthright.
It’s not our job, and our Constitution does not obligate us to guarantee these rights to all and sundry.
Your final paragraph sums it up quite nicely, and again I have no quarrel with what you have written there: I only take issue with your insistence that our Constitution obliges us to guarantee these rights to some Pushtoon zealot gloating over the savaged body of an American soldier in Afghanistan.