Zalita v. Bush
Open-knowledge reference entry
Zalita v. Bush (Civil Action No. 05-cv-1220) is a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of Guantanamo captive Abu Abdul Rauf Zalita before United States District Court judge Ricardo M. Urbina.
On January 2, 2008, the Project to Enforce the Geneva Conventions named Zalita v. Bush on a list of "notable GTMO and related cases".
The United States Supreme Court's May 1, 2007 decision not to review the ruling of a lower court that the Military Commissions Act had stripped the Judicial Branch of jurisdiction over Guantanamo captives was described as a victory for the Bush Presidency.
However, following its ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, which restored the Guantanamo captives' access to the US justice system the Supreme Court particularly directed the circuit court to reconsider Zalita's case.
Military Commissions Act
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 mandated that Guantanamo captives were no longer entitled to access the US civil justice system, so all outstanding habeas corpus petitions were stayed.
On April 25, 2007, a request that would bar camp authorities from transferring Zalita back to Libya was denied.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Zalita v. Bush” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Zalita, Bush and Open-knowledge, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 29, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q8065504. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1220, 2008, 2007 and 2006.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Zalita v. Bush”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Zalita v. Bush primary sources, Zalita v. Bush archive and Zalita research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Zalita v. Bush”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Zalita v. Bush” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.