I understand your distinction, and I stand corrected in my use of the term "enemy" when it doesn't apply, but my point still stands. There is a minor sliver of an exception to your loophole, because the US has declared that some things are not of themselves causes for "enmity", one of which is adherence to the Muslim faith.

If you say that being in the militia is a requirement of Islam (and a quick search of a Koran does not find that to be true), then it was equally true when the US signed that statement; and I have no doubt that some Muslim somewhere was involved in a public crisis even at the time it was being signed in the Senate.

But change one single iota of your premise away from specific treaty terms, or clarify that the US has the ability to declare someone to not actually be a Muslim, then you're golden.

You also need to be careful to not trounce over other treaties, like the UN Charter. That's not hard, if the last 50 years of US military interventions is any indication, but it's not so easy as only using the language of the loophole.

You're arguing about this as though the people exploiting loopholes in the law to kill people by executive order without so much as a single judicial hearing are going to honor treaties as well. Here's a hint for you. Research all the treaties the U.S. made with the native Indian tribes.

You are completely missing the point. This doesn't have anything to do with Muslims or Islam. It has everything to do with some psychos in the U.S. government ruining the rule of law for everybody in the entire world, because it has some tiny benefit just for them in the short term.

The 5th amendment basically says that the normal rules do not apply in a war or public safety threat. Therefore, if you, as an agent of the government, wish to operate outside the rules, you just create a war or public safety threat. That's what we call a perverse incentive.