My point is that those are different outcomes, not the same; one protects me - a person in the US who is not a US citizen - and the other does not. The difference is also a furtherance of a generally authoritarian idea that non-US-citizens should have not equal protection under the law.

No, the argument was that foreign terrorists and other non-state enemy combatants were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US legal system (because they weren't on US soil when captured, and as non-state combatants that weren't covered by any treaties to which the US was a party) and thus also not afforded its protections. However, as a matter of international law, a country generally has legal jurisdiction over any person physically present in the country, whether present legally or otherwise, excepting specific diplomatic personnel (as defined by local law or treaty).

This was the reason for holding them indefinitely in an military facility located in another country. However, under US law, military facilities are considered US soil, and so persons being held in US military facilities are subject to the jurisdiction (and protection) of the US legal system.

This reminds me a bit of the Roman concept of the pomerium. Anything outside of the arbitrary line deciding what was Rome and what wasn't, was "anything goes."

In the SCOTUS rulings on Guantanamo, SCOTUS went further and stated that they would have ruled the same way if it had been a CIA facility instead of a military facility, so long as Cuba had granted the CIA permission to exclusively use the land for its own purposes.