WorldCat Identities

Elsea, Jennifer

Works: 138 works in 328 publications in 1 language and 4,387 library holdings
Genres: Guidebooks  Rules 
Roles: Author
Classifications: KF4941, 328.7307456
Publication Timeline
Most widely held works by Jennifer Elsea
Declarations of war and authorizations for military forces ( )
5 editions published in 2009 in English and held by 979 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Security in Iraq by James L Jones( )
7 editions published between 2009 and 2010 in English and held by 940 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Terrorism and the law of war by Jennifer Elsea( )
2 editions published in 2008 in English and held by 689 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
International Criminal Court : overview and selected legal issues by Jennifer Elsea( )
13 editions published between 2002 and 2006 in English and held by 332 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
On April 11, 2002, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court received its sixtieth ratification, meaning it will come into effect July 1, 2002, establishing the first global permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for [beta]the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.[gamma] The United Nations, many human rights organizations, and most democratic nations have expressed support for the new court. The Bush Administration firmly opposes it and has formally renounced the U.S. obligations under the treaty. At the same time, however, the Administration has stressed that the United States shares the goal of the ICC[alpha]s supporters ₁ promotion of the rule of law ₁ and does not intend to take any action to undermine the ICC. The primary objection given by the United States in opposition to the treaty is the ICC[alpha]s possible assertion of jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers charged with [beta]war crimes[gamma] resulting from legitimate uses of force. The main issue faced by the current Congress is whether to adopt a policy aimed at preventing the ICC from becoming effective or whether to continue contributing to the development of the ICC in order to improve it. This report provides an historical background of the negotiations for the Rome Statute, outlines the structure of the ICC as contained in the final Statute, and describes the jurisdiction of the ICC. The report identifies the specific crimes enumerated in the Rome Statute as supplemented by the draft elements of crime. A discussion of procedural safeguards follows, including reference to the draft procedural rules. The report then discusses the implications for the United States as a non-ratifying country when the ICC comes into being, and outlines some legislation enacted and proposed to regulate U.S. relations with the ICC, including versions of the American Servicemembers[alpha] Protection Act (ASPA) contained in H.R. 1646 and H.R. 4775, the American Servicemember and Citizen Protection Act, H.R. 4169, and the American Citizens[alpha] Protection and War Criminal Prosecution Act of 2001, S. 1296/H.R. 2699
Treatment of battlefield detainees in the war on terrorism by Jennifer Elsea( Book )
28 editions published between 2002 and 2007 in English and held by 264 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
In June 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rasul v. Bush that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges on behalf of persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in connection with the war against terrorism. The Court overturned a ruling that no U.S. court has jurisdiction to hear petitions for "habeas corpus" on behalf of the detainees because they are aliens detained abroad, but left questions involving prisoners' rights and status unanswered. The 9/11 Commission recommended a common coalition approach to such detention. Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to establish standards for interrogation and to deny detainees access to federal courts to file "habeas" petitions (S. Amdt. 2524 to S. 1042, "Graham-Levin Amendment") but allow limited appeals of status determinations and final decisions of military commissions. The Bush Administration earlier deemed all of the detainees to be "unlawful combatants," who may, according to Administration officials, be held indefinitely without trial or even if they are acquitted by a military tribunal. Fifteen of the detainees have been designated as subject to the President's Military Order of November 13, 2001, making them eligible for trial by military commission. In answer to the Rasul decision, the Pentagon instituted Combatant Status Review Tribunals to provide a forum for detainees to challenge their status as "enemy combatants." The Pentagon had earlier announced a plan for annual reviews to determine whether detainees may be released without endangering national security. This report provides an overview of the law of war and the historical treatment of wartime detainees, in particular the U.S. practice; describes how the detainees' status might affect their rights and treatment; and summarizes activity of the 108th and 109th Congresses related to detention in connection with the war against terrorism (H.R. 3038, S. 12, H.R. 2863, S. 1042, H.R. 3003)
Detention of American citizens as enemy combatants by Jennifer Elsea( Book )
15 editions published between 2003 and 2008 in English and held by 160 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
The Supreme Court in 2004 issued three decisions that related to the detention of "enemy combatants," including two that deal with U.S. citizens in military custody on American soil. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality held that a U.S. citizen allegedly captured during combat in Afghanistan and incarcerated at a Navy brig in South Carolina is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral decision-maker regarding the government's reasons for detaining him. The Court in Rumsfeld v. Padilla overturned a lower court's grant of habeas corpus to another U.S. citizen in military custody in South Carolina on jurisdictional grounds. The decisions affirm the President's powers to detain "enemy combatants," including those who are U.S. citizens, as part of the necessary force authorized by Congress after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. However the Court appears to have limited the scope of individuals who may be treated as enemy combatants pursuant to that authority, and clarified that such detainees have some due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. This report analyzes the authority to detain American citizens who are suspected of being members, agents, or associates of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and possibly other organizations as "enemy combatants."
Suspected terrorists and what to do with them by Jennifer Elsea( Book )
5 editions published in 2006 in English and held by 119 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Aims to identify some of the legal and practical implications of treating the terrorist acts as war crimes and of applying the law of war rather than criminal statutes to prosecute the alleged perpetrators. This book also describes the procedures used by the World War II military tribunal to try the eight Germans
The Posse Comitatus Act and related matters : current issues and background by Bonnie Baker( Book )
1 edition published in 2004 in English and held by 77 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Enemy combatant detainees habeas corpus challenges in federal court by Jennifer Elsea( Book )
21 editions published between 2006 and 2010 in English and held by 64 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
After the U.S. Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241 to hear legal challenges on behalf of persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in connection with the war against terrorism (Rasul v. Bush), the Pentagon established administrative hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" (CSRTs), to allow the detainees to contest their status as enemy combatants, and informed them of their right to pursue relief in federal court by seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Lawyers subsequently filed dozens of petitions on behalf of the detainees in the District Court for the District of Columbia, where district court judges reached inconsistent conclusions as to whether the detainees have any enforceable rights to challenge their treatment and detention
Military Commissions Act of 2006 : analyses by Jennifer Elsea( Book )
1 edition published in 2008 in English and held by 56 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
U.S. treatment of prisoners in Iraq selected legal issues by Jennifer Elsea( Book )
8 editions published between 2004 and 2005 in English and held by 49 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Photographs depicting the apparent abuse of Iraqi detainees at the hands of U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have resulted in numerous investigations, congressional hearings, and prosecutions, raising questions regarding the applicable law. The international law of armed conflict, in particular, those parts relating to belligerent occupation, applies to Iraq. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 related to the treatment of prisoners of war (POW) and civilian detainees, as well as the Hague Regulations define the status of detainees and state responsibility for their treatment. Other international law relevant to human rights and to the treatment of prisoners may also apply. For example, the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT) is also relevant. Federal statutes that implement the relevant international law, such as the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Torture Victim Protection Act, as well as the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Torture Victim Protection Act, as well as other criminal statutes with extraterritorial application may also come into play. Finally, the law of Iraq as amended by regulations issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) may apply in some circumstances. This report summarizes pertinent provisions of the Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Victims of War (Geneva Conventions) and other relevant international agreements
Proposed change to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) under S. 113 by Jennifer Elsea( Book )
4 editions published between 2003 and 2004 in English and held by 48 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Federal and state quarantine and isolation authority by Kathleen S Swendiman( Book )
6 editions published between 2005 and 2007 in English and held by 35 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
In the wake of recent terrorist attacks and increasing fears about the spread of highly contagious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and pandemic influenza, federal, state, and local governments have become increasingly aware of the need for a comprehensive public health response to such events. An effective response could include the quarantine of persons exposed to infectious biological agents that are naturally occurring or released during a terrorist attack, the isolation of infected persons, and the quarantine of certain cities or neighborhoods. The public health authority of the states derives from the police powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The authority of the federal government to prescribe quarantine and other health measures is based on the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Thus, state and local governments have the primary authority to control the spread of dangerous diseases within their jurisdictions, and the federal government has authority to quarantine and impose other health measures to prevent the spread of diseases from foreign countries and between states. In addition, the federal government may assist state efforts to prevent the spread of communicable diseases if requested by a state or if state efforts are inadequate to halt the spread of disease. Some state laws are antiquated and, until recently, have not been reviewed to address the spread of disease resulting from a biological attack. Other state laws do not cover newly emerging diseases such as SARS or pandemic influenza. In light of recent events, however, many states are reevaluating their public health emergency authorities and are expected to enact more comprehensive laws relating to quarantine and isolation. Public health experts have developed a Model State Emergency Health Powers Act to guide states as they reevaluate their emergency response plans. This report provides an overview of federal and state public health laws as they relate to the quarantine and isolation of individuals, a discussion of constitutional issues that may be raised should individual liberties be restricted in a quarantine situation, and federalism questions that may arise where federal and state authorities overlap. In addition, the possible role of the armed forces in enforcing public health measures is discussed, specifically whether the Posse Comitatus Act would constrain any military role, and other statutory authorities that may be used for the military enforcement of health measures
Private security contractors in Iraq background, legal status, and other issues by Jennifer Elsea( Book )
8 editions published between 2004 and 2008 in English and Undetermined and held by 33 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
The United States is relying heavily on private firms to supply a wide variety of services in Iraq, including security. From the information available in published sources, this apparently is the first time that the United States has depended on contractors to provide such extensive security in a hostile environment, although it has previously contracted for more limited security services in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and elsewhere. In Iraq, private firms known as Private Security Companies (PSC) are currently providing security services such as the protection of individuals, non-military transport convoys, buildings and other economic infrastructure, as well as the training of Iraqi police and military personnel. The use of armed contractors raises several concerns for many Members, including transparency and accountability. Transparency issues include the lack of public information on the terms of their contacts, including their costs and the standards governing their hiring and performance, as well as the background and training of those hired under contract. The apparent lack of a practical means to hold contractors accountable under U.S. law for abuses and other transgressions, and the possibility that they could be prosecuted by foreign courts, is also a source of concern. Contractors working with the U.S. military (or with any of the coalition forces) in Iraq are non-combatants who have no combat immunity under international law if they engage in hostilities, and whose conduct may be attributable to the United States. Section 522 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 (P.L. 109-364) makes military contractors supporting the Armed Forces in Iraq subject to court-martial, but until the Department of Defense publishes implementing regulations, it is more likely that contractors who commit crimes in Iraq would be prosecuted under criminal statutes that apply extraterritorially or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or by means of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA). Iraqi courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute contractors without the permission of the relevant member country of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq. It is possible that some contractors may remain outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, civil or military, for improper conduct in Iraq. This report summarizes what is currently known about companies that provide personnel for security missions in Iraq and some sources of controversy surrounding them. A treatment of legal status and authorities follows, including an overview of relevant international law as well as Iraqi law, which currently consists primarily of Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) orders that remain in effect until superseded. The various possible means for prosecuting contractors under U.S. law in civilian or military courts are detailed, followed by a discussion of possible issues for Congress
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 background and proposed amendments by Jennifer Elsea( )
in English and held by 28 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
This report provides a background and analysis of military commissions rules under the MCA. After reviewing the history of the implementation of military commissions in the "global war on terrorism," the report provides an overview of the procedural safeguards provided in the MCA. The report identifies pending legislation, including Senate-passed S. 1390, and describes proposals suggested by the Obama Administration. Finally, the report provides two charts comparing the MCA with proposed legislation. The first chart describes the composition and powers of the military tribunals, as well as their jurisdiction. The second chart, which compares procedural safeguards under the MCA with those established for courts-martial as well as proposed amendments to the MCA, follows the same order and format used in CRS Report RL31262, Selected Procedural Safeguards in Federal, Military, and International Courts, to facilitate comparison with safeguards provided in federal court and international criminal tribunals
Options for trying Saddam Hussein for international crimes by Jennifer Elsea( Book )
3 editions published in 2004 in English and held by 24 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Iraq June 30, 2004, transition to sovereignty by Kenneth Katzman( Book )
3 editions published in 2004 in English and held by 24 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Presidential authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence information by Elizabeth B Bazan( )
4 editions published in 2006 in English and held by 23 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Recent media revelations that the President authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect signals intelligence from communications involving U.S. perons within the United States, without obtaining a warrant or court order, raise numerous questions
The Supreme Court and detainees in the war on terrorism summary and analysis of recent decisions by Jennifer Elsea( Book )
2 editions published in 2004 in English and held by 23 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Congressional authority to limit U.S. military operations in Iraq by Jennifer Elsea( Book )
3 editions published in 2007 in English and held by 22 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
On October 16, 2002, President Bush signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Congress has enacted appropriation bills to fund the continuation of the Iraq war, including military training, reconstruction, and other aid for the government of Iraq. The situation in Iraq has focused attention on whether Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate limits on the President's authority to conduct military operations in Iraq, even though it did not initially provide express limits. Specifically under consideration is whether Congress may, through limitations on appropriations, set a ceiling on the number of soldiers the President may assign to duty in Iraq. It has been suggested that the President's role as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces provides sufficient authority for his deployment of additional troops, and any efforts on the part of Congress to intervene could represent an unconstitutional violation of separation-of-powers principles. While even proponents of strong executive prerogative in matters of war appear to concede that it is within Congress's authority to cut off funding entirely for a military operation, it has been suggested that spending measures that restrict but do not end financial support for the war in Iraq would amount to an "unconstitutional condition." The question may turn on whether the President's proposal is a purely operational decision committed to the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief, or whether congressional action to prevent the proposal's carrying out is a valid exercise of Congress's authority to allocate resources using its war powers and power of the purse. This report provides background and discusses constitutional provisions allocating war powers between Congress and the President. It presents an historical overview of relevant court cases followed by some examples of measures enacted by Congress to restrict military operations. The report includes a discussion of possible alternative avenues to fund operations in the event Congress were to restrict appropriations for the war in Iraq. Finally, the report provides a brief analysis of arguments that might be brought to bear on the question of Congress's authority to limit the availability of troops to serve in Iraq, and concludes that, although not beyond debate, such a restriction appears to be within Congress's authority to allocate resources for military operations
moreShow More Titles
fewerShow Fewer Titles
Audience Level
Audience Level
  Kids General Special  
Audience level: 0.51 (from 0.35 for Terrorism ... to 0.94 for Proposed c ...)
Alternative Names
Elsea, Jennifer
Elsea, Jennifer K.
English (139)