The Pentagon wants to broadcast the execution of Nidal Malik Hasan live on the internet. It is a historic first that shatters decades of legal precedent and ethical boundaries in the United States.
When acting Secretary of the Army Adam Telle scheduled the December 3 firing squad execution at Fort Hood, officials framed it as public accountability. Pete Hegseth defended the decision on a podcast, arguing that streaming the execution serves as a deterrent.
You do not need a law degree to spot the immediate constitutional and statutory landmines sitting right under this plan.
The Legal Firewall Preventing Public Executions
Public executions vanished from American soil for a reason. On August 14, 1936, thousands packed into Owensboro, Kentucky, to watch the hanging of Rainey Bethea. The gruesome spectacle turned into a circus, forcing state legislatures across the country to enact strict witness limits. Today, every single state and federal jurisdiction restricts execution witnesses to a handful of vetted officials, victims' families, and reporters.
The military justice code contains explicit guardrails. Army Regulation 190-55 bars minors from witnessing executions entirely.
When you broadcast a firing squad execution over the internet, you obliterate those physical boundaries. Minors can pull up the stream on any smartphone. Human rights lawyers like Clive Stafford Smith note that streaming graphic violence directly violates federal and state statutes prohibiting the transmission of obscene or indecent material to children.
International Law and the Cruel Punishment Debate
The United States signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1992. The treaty explicitly bans torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Legal experts argue that turning an execution into a digital broadcast crosses the line from capital punishment into theatrical degradation. When executions become content consumed on screens, they shed their legal veneer and take on the attributes of medieval punishment.
Critics from both sides of the political aisle have reacted sharply. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy compared the plan to propaganda broadcasts produced by extremist groups. Amnesty International warned that publicizing state-sanctioned killings shows a total disregard for human dignity.
The Deterrence Myth
Proponents argue that watching a firing squad carry out justice will deter future mass shooters. Criminologists and legal scholars disagree.
History shows that high-profile executions rarely deter violent criminals, especially individuals driven by ideological or deeply personal grievances. In cases like Hasan's, where the shooter acted with premeditated intent and expected martyrdom or severe repercussions, publicizing the execution risks achieving the exact opposite effect. It can romanticize the offender within extremist echo chambers and inspire copycats.
Furthermore, executing a prisoner by firing squad on the exact base where he committed his crimes—televised globally—creates massive logistical and security nightmares. The military will face emergency injunctions, civil liberties lawsuits, and intense congressional battles before December arrives.
The courts will have to decide whether the Pentagon possesses the emergency authority to rewrite witness laws for a digital audience. Until then, streaming a state execution turns the justice system into digital reality television.
