Yes, the Geneva Conventions Apply — Even When the U.S. Says “We’re Not at War”

In this episode, I address a persistent and misguided argument: the claim that the Geneva Conventions do not apply because the United States is not in a formally declared war. That view collapses the moment you read the text of the treaties themselves. Common Article 2 applies in any armed conflict—“even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.” And Common Article 3 applies in non-international armed conflicts, including counterterrorism operations.

I also explain the binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which held that Common Article 3 does govern U.S. operations against Al Qaeda and other non-state actors. In short: the minimum humanitarian protections of the Geneva Conventions attach automatically whenever organized armed force is used.

Finally, I address the good-faith argument that many of these operations may have been unlawful from the outset. I don’t disagree. But that is a separate legal question. The Geneva Conventions do not condition humane-treatment obligations on the legality of the underlying mission.

A “no survivors” directive is illegal every time, in every context.

This episode breaks down the law with clarity and precision—and confronts the excuses head-on.

Get clear, unvarnished analysis at the intersection of national security, human rights, and the rule of law—grounded in my experience as an attorney, a former federal prosecutor, and a former JSOC/SEAL officer. Subscribe to stay informed without the spin.

Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe