Why do I need to read it again? I never said war was Unconstitutional, or that every person in any way inconvenienced by any act of war by the US had a valid case at law against the US government. You appear to be reading stuff into my words that just isn't there.
Get this straight: It is Constitutional for the US to make war. The US government is not liable for damages when it Constitutionally wages war, for the same reason that a police officer is not liable for damages when he shoots someone dead in self defense. But that's not the issue.
The issue is the precise dividing line between Constitutionally and morally justified acts of war (or other forms of self defense,) and unconstitional acts that violate the rights of others.
When is it OK to arrest someone as a suspected murderer, put him on trial, convict him, sentence him to death, and carry out that sentence? Obviously, there must be situations where that's both Constitutional and morally justified. And situations where it is not.
When is it OK to shoot enemy combatants dead, or to capture and imprison them? And for how long is it OK to deny them their liberty? Obviously, there must be situations where it's both Constitutionally and morally justified. And situations where it is not. How do we know the difference? That's the issue.
Your theory that the relevant Constitional and moral strictures simply don't apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents of the US is provably false. And I have provided that proof. Based on that, you wrongfully infer that I am claiming that any and all enemy combatants have a valid case at law in US courts against the US government for any harm they may have suffered at the hands of our military. I make no such claim, and in fact vigourously deny and oppose any such premise.