The Bill of Rights, which is law, doesn't talk about "all men" (neither does the Constitution) but says things like "Congress shall make no law..." or "No warrant shall issue...", and says nothing about " all men".
In the case of terrorism executions specifically the justification given is that they are an act of war.
In a "war" where every person on the planet is a potential enemy, these rules should not be applied, otherwise all someone has to say is "terrorist!" and poof, there go your rights...wait, that's exactly what's happening!
Capturing and trying a person who is actively shooting at you is not practical.
But the style of executions that the US and allies are engaging in has much more in common with law enforcement than "war" -- they receive a "tip" or as a product of their investigations, come across "information" that person X is engaging in terrorism activities. Person X is not permitted to present evidence to the contrary. They are not permitted to present a rebuttal to the claims. There is not even a check or balance on the assertions to Person X's activities. An assessment is made, strike ordered, and Person X, and anyone within a 100ft radius of them, are summarily judged and executed.
The laws proposed are not limited to only "terrorists" -- and there is a long history of the US failing to apply any sort of constitutional protections to any second-class human being. How someone can claim that the protections of the Constitution(or the ideas presented in the Declaration of Independence) are morally self-evident, but yet, somehow only apply to a US Citizen, presents two assertions that are in conflict.