The Pentagon plans to livestream the firing-squad execution of Nidal Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist convicted in the Fort Hood massacre. A Pentagon official confirmed the plan to Reuters on Oct. 8. Americans could soon watch their government put a prisoner to death through an internet connection.

That should disturb us.

Hasan’s crimes were horrific. He killed 13 people and injured 32 during the 2009 attack. A military jury sentenced him to death in 2013. Those facts establish the gravity of his crimes. They do not explain why his execution should become a broadcast.

During an interview with Jack Posobiec on Human Events Daily, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made his position clear.

“We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public,” he said. He presented public viewing as a way to demonstrate the serious consequences of such an attack.

https://rumble.com/embed/v7eemxc/?pub=4

I am firmly against this plan. The government’s power to take a life demands restraint, scrutiny and an acknowledgment of its finality. Turning that act into a livestream moves us in the opposite direction.

Livestreaming an execution crosses a moral line

The Army’s official announcement schedules Hasan’s execution for Dec. 3 at 1 p.m. Central at Fort Hood, Texas. President Donald Trump approved the death sentence Oct. 2. Acting Army Secretary Adam Telle subsequently directed that the military carry it out by firing squad.

The broadcast announcement adds a separate decision. Officials have chosen to invite an audience to watch the government kill him.

According to The Associated Press, Pentagon officials explicitly confirmed the livestream after Hegseth described the execution as public. They said additional details would follow. The proposal therefore goes beyond speculation about what Hegseth meant.

Even Americans who support capital punishment should ask why this additional step is necessary. What public purpose requires broadcasting the moment a person dies? What does the livestream accomplish that an official record, independent witnesses and rigorous reporting cannot?

Hegseth’s stated rationale deserves examination. Saying that people should see consequences does not establish that they need to watch an execution. A conviction, a sentence and the loss of liberty already communicate the government’s judgment.

The livestream would add something else: an audience for the punishment itself.

That is the decision I find indefensible. Government officials should be able to explain why a policy serves the public beyond its capacity to deliver a forceful message.

Hasan’s guilt does not remove our responsibility

There will undoubtedly be people who respond to objections by listing Hasan’s victims or describing the attack. Those facts belong in this discussion. The people he killed, the people he wounded and the families he devastated deserve to remain central to the public record.

However, his guilt does not relieve the government of responsibility for its own conduct.

A person convicted of mass murder can be held accountable while the public questions how officials exercise power over him. That scrutiny remains necessary precisely because the state controls the prisoner, the setting, the weapons and the procedure.

By the time an execution occurs, the government has complete control over the encounter. Broadcasting it would be a deliberate policy choice made from that position of power.

I reject the idea that opposing such a broadcast requires sympathy for Hasan. My objection concerns the standards our government should uphold, including when the person in its custody has committed an appalling crime.

The easier a prisoner is to hate, the easier it becomes to dismiss every question about his treatment. That is when a public commitment to limits matters most.

We should be able to condemn Hasan’s actions without surrendering our judgment about the actions of public officials.

Victims’ families deserve their own voices

The families and survivors do not share a single view about watching the execution.

CBS Texas reported that families received an email asking whether they wanted to attend or watch online. Some survivors plan to attend. Leila Hunt Willingham, whose brother J.D. Hunt was killed, said she would not.

“I don’t find peace in that. My peace comes from my faith,” she told CBS. Survivor Keara Torkelson also expressed reluctance to witness more death.

Those responses deserve respect without being forced into someone else’s political argument.

A relative who wants to witness an execution should not be treated as the spokesperson for every grieving family. Likewise, a survivor who declines should not have to defend that decision to strangers.

Officials should also distinguish between accommodating affected families and creating a broadcast for the general public. Those decisions involve different audiences, different purposes and different responsibilities.

The people whose lives changed at Fort Hood deserve careful consideration of their needs. Their suffering should never become a blanket justification for whatever government officials decide to do next.

We should be especially cautious when politicians invoke justice for victims while promoting an act designed for public consumption. The victims’ families have their own voices. They do not need officials assigning them a shared definition of closure.

Military authority demands restraint

I served in the Army for 21 years. That experience shapes how I view this announcement.

Military authority carries enormous power. I expect leaders who exercise it to understand the importance of discipline, limits and responsibility. Those expectations apply to their public conduct as well as their operational decisions.

Hegseth’s language does not reassure me.

During the interview, Posobiec asked whether Hasan had made any final request or contacted the president. Hegseth responded: “Don’t care. We’ll see him on December 3.”

I find that response beneath the seriousness of the office and the decision before it.

A senior official can support a sentence without sounding eager for an encounter with the condemned. The responsibilities of leadership should require more than a dismissive line that plays well in an interview.

The historical weight makes that obligation greater. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, Hasan’s execution would be the first carried out by the U.S. military since 1961. It would also be its first firing-squad execution since World War II.

An institution preparing to resume executions after 65 years should approach that decision with extraordinary care. Adding a livestream demands its own justification.

I want military leaders to explain their decisions with precision. I want them to respect the seriousness of taking a life, even when they believe the sentence is warranted. I want the institution’s credibility to matter more than the impact of a televised declaration.

Those are reasonable expectations of civilian leadership over the armed forces.

Related coverage: Nidal Hasan Set for Firing Squad Execution at Fort Hood in Historic Return of Military Death Penalty

Legal authority does not settle the moral question

There is an important distinction between criticizing this plan and declaring it unconstitutional.

The current Uniform Code of Military Justice requires presidential approval before the military can carry out a court-martial death sentence. It also addresses the completion of appellate review. Those requirements govern the execution of the sentence. They do not, by themselves, answer every question about broadcasting it.

I am not claiming that a court has ruled this livestream unlawful. My objection does not depend on such a ruling.

Government can make a morally indefensible choice even when its lawyers believe they can defend it. Citizens are entitled to demand better standards than the bare minimum officials believe the law permits.

The execution date also does not guarantee that the sentence will proceed on schedule.

A May analysis in Army Lawyer explains that presidential approval does not necessarily end court proceedings. A military prisoner may seek federal habeas corpus review and request a stay of execution. A federal judge can halt an execution while that litigation proceeds.

That process deserves accurate coverage. It should not be dismissed as an inconvenience because an official has announced a date.

For now, Dec. 3 is the Army’s scheduled execution date. The livestream remains an announced government plan, with important details still outstanding. Neither should be reported as an event that has already occurred.

Transparency requires more than a camera

The strongest argument for showing an execution would be transparency.

The government exercises its most irreversible power when it puts someone to death. The public should know how officials reach that decision, what procedures they follow and whether those procedures fail.

I support that scrutiny. My opposition to this livestream should not be mistaken for support for secrecy.

The Army Lawyer analysis describes authorized execution witnesses, including media representatives, counsel and designated family members. That existing role for witnesses illustrates an important point: public accountability can involve independent observation without an unrestricted broadcast of the execution.

A camera also cannot answer every question that matters.

Who approved the procedure? What safeguards apply? How will officials document a complication? What records will become available afterward? Will journalists have enough access to independently evaluate the government’s account?

Those questions concern accountability before, during and after an execution. A livestream alone would not resolve them.

I would rather see officials commit to thorough records, meaningful independent scrutiny and prompt disclosure of any failure. Those commitments would tell the public more about the government’s willingness to accept responsibility.

Hegseth, however, presented public viewing as a demonstration of consequences. That is the rationale he offered, and it deserves to be judged on its own terms.

Showing power is not sufficient proof that power has been exercised responsibly.

An internet audience changes the decision

There is another problem with treating this as simply another way to allow witnesses.

Once footage enters public circulation, officials cannot assume it will remain within the setting or purpose they intended. People can copy it, edit it, attach commentary and circulate excerpts divorced from the original broadcast.

The resulting images could reach people who never chose to watch an execution. They could also follow victims’ families and survivors into spaces where they were seeking ordinary life rather than another encounter with the case.

These are foreseeable concerns, not claims that any particular outcome is certain. They belong in the decision before the government creates the footage.

The Pentagon has not yet explained the full broadcast arrangements in the reporting announcing its plan. Before officials move forward, the public deserves answers about access, safeguards and what viewers would actually see.

Even satisfactory logistical answers would not overcome my objection. They would merely make the proposal clearer.

I do not believe the government should deliberately create a public livestream of a prisoner being killed. The availability of the technology does not provide a reason to use it.

We should refuse to normalize this

Americans can disagree about capital punishment and still recognize the significance of this proposal.

Supporting Hasan’s sentence does not require supporting its broadcast. Opposing the livestream does not diminish the lives he took. Neither position should be reduced to a test of who feels enough anger about the attack.

The question is what we expect from our government when it holds the power to take a life.

My answer is restraint. I expect seriousness from the officials involved, meaningful oversight of the process and respect for the people whose lives remain bound to this case.

I also expect the public to retain the right to say that a government decision is wrong, even when its target is widely despised.

Livestreaming an execution would turn an irreversible exercise of state power into an event offered to an online audience. Hegseth may consider that an appropriate demonstration of consequences. I consider it a failure of judgment and leadership.

Hasan must answer for his crimes. Government officials must answer for their own decisions.

The Pentagon should abandon this plan.