Republicans and Democrats have objected to the Pentagon’s plan to broadcast the Fort Hood shooter’s death. The president says he hasn’t decided.
The Pentagon’s plan to livestream the execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan has drawn criticism from lawmakers in both parties, international human rights bodies and Catholic leaders. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced last week that the execution would be public. In an interview with Real America’s Voice reported by the Associated Press, Hegseth said, “We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public,” and Pentagon officials confirmed the livestream the next day. Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 32 at the Texas base in 2009. The Army has scheduled his firing-squad execution for Dec. 3. According to Hegseth, the soldiers will fire at 1 p.m., the same hour Hasan began his attack in 2009. If it proceeds, it would be the first execution in the military justice system in more than 60 years and the first by firing squad since World War II.
The most notable objections have come from death penalty supporters. Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, said Hasan should face the death penalty but called the planned broadcast “beyond disgusting,” and he added in a post reported by The National News Desk that “Public executions are what oppressive dictatorships like Iran and Afghanistan do.” On the Democratic side, Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, a Marine Corps veteran, called the prospect of a livestream “a snuff film,” according to Roll Call. Several lawmakers also raised a security concern: Hasan has reportedly wanted to become a martyr. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, called the plan a “gift to anti-American terrorist recruiters” in comments reported by Al Jazeera. Not every Republican has objected. Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee praised Hegseth’s decision and said a public execution is what Hasan deserves.
The White House has not settled the question. On Friday, Trump said he “absolutely” approved the execution itself but had not decided whether to allow the livestream. Reed has said a public execution would require a presidential waiver. Vice President JD Vance questioned whether the livestream would actually happen and told reporters that if it did, “I’m not going to be watching it,” according to the Associated Press. The Philadelphia Inquirer noted that this was the first time a senior Trump official had publicly shown discomfort with the Pentagon’s decision.
Criticism outside Congress has been just as strong. The United Nations and Amnesty International quickly condemned the plan, and the U.N. said a broadcast would violate international law. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops described the livestream as “a barbaric promotion of a culture of death.” The idea that a government could make an execution more open without making it a spectacle is the central argument of SSC publisher Will Davison Jr.’s column, A Livestreamed Execution Isn’t Justice. It’s a Spectacle. The column compares the plan to the 2001 McVeigh execution, which survivors watched over a closed-circuit feed while the general public could not. It argues that transparency comes from witnesses, records and accountability, not a camera aimed at the person being executed.
The existing rules already make room for limited public oversight. Army regulations require that at least two media outlets be chosen to witness an execution, which means independent reporting would occur without a livestream. The key decision now belongs to the president. Trump can block the broadcast, approve a waiver or let the Pentagon’s announcement stand. With the execution set for Dec. 3 and lawmakers in both parties asking for a reversal, the next statement from the White House will show whether the execution proceeds as an act of military justice or as a nationwide broadcast.
Sources: Associated Press, Roll Call, Al Jazeera, The National News Desk, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Gulf News, Straight Arrow New