[capitan_refugio]

Yes, my statement that it was from the Hamdi "decision" was in error. It was from the Hamdi "documentation" on Findlaw.com and I mistook it for the decision or the dissent. Big deal.

The real question is: Is the description of the Mitchell provided incorrect?

No. Mitchell was an American citizen. So your analogy still fails.

[GOPcapitalist]

Yes, my statement that it was from the Hamdi "decision" was in error. It was from the Hamdi "documentation" on Findlaw.com and I mistook it for the decision or the dissent. Big deal

The big deal is that this seems to be a recurring problem with you, capitan. Not only did you do this with Hamdi, but you also did it with the Prize Cases (presenting an argument as if it were the decision), Bollman (presenting the dissent as if it were the decision), and this latest case that NC pointed out. That's a a pretty bad track record, especially considering that the "decision" part of the case is easily found. It's the one that usually starts with "Justice So-and-so delivered the opinion of the court" and ends with something to the effect of "so held."