Is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other Gitmo prisoners less dangerous than Jared Lougher and James Holmes?

Quote from Radeck : There is nothing to discuss with an apples and oranges scenario, both qualitatively as well as quantitatively. KSM and Gitmo prisoners are NOT US citizens. Holmes and Loughner ARE citizens, and so have rights conferred upon them by said citizenship that do not apply to KSM et al.

What rights are exclusive only to U.S. citizens? Which Constitutional amendments explicitly limits the right to fair and speedy trials, habeas corpus, etc. to U.S. citizens only?

And are you arguing that legal permanent resident aliens in the U.S. have no right to fair and speedy trials in civilian courts?

Quote : KSM et al have directly or indirectly killed thousands, not just on 9/11 but also in numerous other terrorist attacks the world over. Holmes and Loughner have killed 10's, not 1000's.

Holmes and Loughner did not have the same access to al-Qaeda resources that KSM et al had. The question still remains: if given the same access to al-Qaeda resources, would Holmes and Loughner have killed more people than KSM et al? If so, would that make KSM et al less dangerous than Holmes and Loughner?

Having access to terrorist resources alone does not imply a person is more dangerous. Given the state of mind of Holmes/Loughner vs. KSM, one would conclude that KSM was less bloodthirsty than Holmes/Loughner. The relative bloodthirstiness of the individuals is what is being discussed here and how we are using this bloodthirstiness to justify special incarceration of the individuals.