On a December afternoon at Fort Hood, the same base and the same hour where a 2009 attack once shattered lives, the United States military prepares to carry out a death sentence against Nidal Hasan, and to broadcast it to whoever might choose to watch. The plan asks an old question about what a democracy owes to its dead and to its grieving: whether justice is served by display, or whether the state's power to kill is diminished when it is turned into spectacle. Voices across the political spectrum, from senators and bishops to the Pope and United Nations officials, have questioned the choice,
Pentagon Plans Livestreamed Firing Squad Execution of Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, Drawing Bipartisan Condemnation
The same base, the same day of the week, the same hour.
Why does the Pentagon say it wants this broadcast?
Hegseth says deterrence. He wants people to see that attacking American soldiers carries the gravest consequence, and he chose Fort Hood, the day and the hour to mirror the 2009 attack.
Deterrence is his claim, not an established effect. Joe Kent, a former counterterrorism chief, argues the opposite: extremists could use it for recruitment.
And the criticism isn't along party lines?
No. Tillis supports the death sentence and still called the stream beyond disgusting. Murphy compared it to Islamic State executions.
Where does the White House stand?
Trump says he hasn't decided. Vance said he doesn't know it will happen and won't watch.
So the plan is announced, but not settled. Treat the December 3 broadcast as a stated intention, not a certainty.
What about the victims?
Alonzo Lunsford, shot seven times, backs the execution but thinks any viewing should be limited to survivors and families.
We also don't know whether families will even be invited, which platform would carry it, or how Army Regulation 190-55 applies. Those are open.
Il Polso
- A date is fixed: December 3, 1 pm Central Time, at the same Fort Hood site and hour as the 2009 shooting.
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insists the firing squad should be broadcast live, calling the choice a no-brainer.
- Senators from both parties, the US Catholic bishops, the Pope and the UN condemn the plan as barbaric, medieval and degrading.
- Trump and Vance voice doubt that the livestream will happen, while the Pentagon offers few details on platform, witnesses or legal compliance.
- Military regulations, possible civilian court challenges and the wishes of survivors now stand between the plan and its execution.
On a December afternoon at Fort Hood, the same base and the same hour where a 2009 attack once shattered lives, the United States military prepares to carry out a death sentence against Nidal Hasan, and to broadcast it to whoever might choose to watch. The plan asks an old question about what a democracy owes to its dead and to its grieving: whether justice is served by display, or whether the state's power to kill is diminished when it is turned into spectacle. Voices across the political spectrum, from senators and bishops to the Pope and United Nations officials, have questioned the choice, while the Pentagon argues that visibility itself is a form of deterrence. Whether the plan survives legal and moral scrutiny remains unsettled.
On December 3, at 1 pm Central Time, Nidal Malik Hasan is scheduled to face a firing squad at Fort Hood, Texas. It is the same base, the same weekday and the same hour as the afternoon in November 2009 when he opened fire on fellow soldiers. The Pentagon wants the execution broadcast live, and that decision has set off an unusual political fight.
Hasan was convicted of killing 13 people and wounding 32 others. He described the attack as jihad and targeted soldiers preparing to deploy to Afghanistan. He was left paralysed after being shot by responding officers, and he was sentenced to death in 2013. President Trump approved the execution on October 2.
War Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the broadcast as deterrence, arguing that people need to understand there are serious consequences. The pushback has crossed party lines. Republican Senator Thom Tillis called streaming it beyond disgusting, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy called public executions medieval, and Republican Senator John Curtis warned against treating executions as entertainment. Religious and international voices have joined in: the US Catholic bishops called the plan a barbaric promotion of a culture of death, Pope Leo XIV reiterated his opposition to capital punishment, and a UN human rights spokesperson said public executions could breach the absolute prohibition on torture.
Even the White House is hesitant. Trump says he has not decided on the livestream, and Vance says he does not know whether it will happen and will not be watching. A former counterterrorism director warned that broadcasting the death could feed extremist propaganda.
Much remains unclear. The Pentagon has not explained why witnessed execution would not suffice, which platform would carry a stream, or whether victims' families would be invited. Army regulations limit who may witness military executions, and whether a broadcast fits those rules is unresolved. Hasan's lawyer calls the plan political theatre, while Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times in 2009, supports the execution but believes any broadcast should be limited to survivors and families. Legal experts note that civilian court challenges could still delay the date.
On December 3, at 1 pm Central Time, Nidal Malik Hasan is scheduled to stand before a firing squad at Fort Hood, Texas. It is the same base, the same day of the week and the same hour as the afternoon in November 2009 when the former Army psychiatrist opened fire on fellow soldiers. The Pentagon wants the execution broadcast live, and that plan has set off one of the more unusual political fights of the season.
Hasan was convicted of killing 13 people, 12 of them fellow soldiers, and wounding 32 others in the 2009 attack. He described it as an act of jihad and targeted soldiers preparing to deploy to Afghanistan. Responding officers shot him, and he was left paralysed from the waist down. He was sentenced to death in 2013, and President Donald Trump approved the execution on October 2. Hasan was born in Arlington, Virginia, to Palestinian immigrant parents, and The Washington Post reports his mother's family came from Al-Bireh, near Ramallah.
War Secretary Pete Hegseth called the attack a radical Islamist one and defended the broadcast as a matter of deterrence. He said Hasan would face a firing squad of soldiers and that the public should be able to watch, because people need to understand there are serious consequences. He called the choice of location and timing a no-brainer. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell stressed that Hasan killed 13 and wounded 32 while shouting Allahu Akbar.
The pushback has come from both parties. Republican Senator Thom Tillis, who supports the death sentence, wrote on X that streaming it was beyond disgusting and the kind of thing Iran and Afghanistan do. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy asked on CNN whether Hegseth was mimicking Islamic State executions, and called public executions medieval. Republican Senator John Curtis warned against cultivating an appetite for executions as entertainment. Representative Austin Scott said livestreaming killings is what jihadists do, and Representative Rob Bresnahan said victims and families deserve respect rather than a show.
Religious and international voices have joined in. Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, called the plan a barbaric promotion of a culture of death. On October 10, World Day Against the Death Penalty, Pope Leo XIV reiterated his opposition to capital punishment, though he did not name Hasan or the Pentagon. In Geneva, UN Human Rights Office spokesperson Shabia Mantoo said public executions amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and would breach the absolute prohibition on torture.
The White House itself is wavering. Trump said he does not care how Hasan goes as long as he goes, and that he has not decided on the livestream. Vice President JD Vance told reporters in Cincinnati he does not know that it will actually happen, and that he will not be watching. Joe Kent, who resigned earlier this year as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, warned that broadcasting the death could hand extremist groups propaganda for recruitment and radicalisation.
The history is stark. The last widely recognised public execution in the US was the hanging of Rainey Bethea in Owensboro, Kentucky, on August 14, 1936, before thousands of spectators. The last military firing squad execution was Private Eddie Slovik in 1945, for desertion; the military's last execution by any method was the 1961 hanging of Private John Bennett.
Much remains unanswered. The Pentagon has not said why a conventional execution with designated witnesses would not convey its message, nor which platform would carry a stream or whether it would be available worldwide. It has not said whether victims' families will be invited, or how the firing squad will be chosen. CNN notes Army Regulation 190-55 limits who may witness military executions and bars minors, with waivers possible; whether a broadcast fits those rules is unresolved. Hasan's lawyer, John Galligan, told ABC News the plan is political theatre and questioned moving Hasan from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to Fort Hood. Alonzo Lunsford, shot seven times in 2009, supports the execution and wants to attend, but believes any broadcast should be limited to survivors and families.
Legal experts say challenges in civilian federal courts could still delay the date. The Pentagon says more details will come later.
Citazioni salienti
I don't really care how he goes, as long as he goes.— President Donald Trump
Hasan should face the death penalty, but making his execution public and streaming it? Beyond disgusting.— Senator Thom Tillis, on X