Final answer:
Human Rights Law is not the 'lex specialis' for U.S armed forces in armed conflict; instead, international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, is the controlling law in such situations.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that Human Rights Law is the "lex specialis," or the controlling body of law for U.S. armed forces in armed conflict, is false. In the context of international armed conflict, the controlling bodies of law are primarily the rules of international humanitarian law, which include the Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law. These set forth the legal standards for the conduct of war, protection of civilians, treatment of prisoners of war, and other wartime actions. Human Rights Law, while applicable during times of armed conflict to an extent, is not the specialized set of laws that govern wartime conduct between enemies. Instead, it provides broader protections of individual rights both during peacetime and wartime. Cases such as Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld illustrate the tension between national security measures and human rights considerations, and the role the legal system plays in adjudicating such issues.