A punitive spectacle: why does America want us to watch man die?
By Jake Foxall
Capital punishment often remains a background discussion in political fields, yet the recent decision to broadcast the execution of US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan by firing squad forces it forward into the political spotlight, the USA’s first public execution in almost a century. It comes after the US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth recommended the method of execution to President Donald J. Trump, requiring his approval under US military law. Hasan was convicted of killing 13 people and injuring more than 30 others in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting.
The execution is scheduled for December 3, 2026, with the administration ensuring a great deal of symbolism surrounds it, the location and timing being at Fort Hood itself at 1:00 pm, where Hasan’s crimes occurred precisely in Texas 17 years ago.
Few people will question whether the choice to sentence Hasan to the death penalty is controversial outside of debates about the ethicality of the death penalty itself; after all, Hasan committed the deadliest ever non-combat attack on an American military base, brutally murdering 13 people, which included a pregnant woman, and he then excused his acts as ‘protecting Muslims and the Taliban in Afghanistan’ during his court-martial in 2013. The ethical question that emerges is what purpose does broadcasting the execution of a disabled man to a whole nation and the wider world serve?
It’s not just the practical and ideological motives of the US administration that bring controversy to this decision, but its impact on the position of capital punishment in the Constitution. The Constitution does not directly rule out the death penalty, but specifically the methods under which it is carried out. The 8thAmendment strictly prohibits ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. This makes the execution of Nidal Hasan more dramatic, as it follows the recent botched execution of Christa Pike on September 30 this year, who requested a firing squad for her method of execution due to both medical and psychological concerns about the efficiency of lethal injections. Christa survived both injections and was hospitalised in critical condition shortly after.
Hasan’s execution does work to further endanger America, by potentially allowing Hasan to become a martyr for the very groups the administration is attempting to intimidate.
This therefore reveals that methods of execution can have grave consequences for the way they are exercised, bringing forth questions of ethicality and accountability. Hasan’s execution is subsequently significant as it introduces a new variable to which the 8th Amendment could be applied: presentation. In this respect, constitutional experts may question whether the choice made by the state to force Hasan to face hundreds of millions of people as he is fatally shot could be potentially described as either ‘cruel’ or ‘unusual’. It also reveals what the state wants and doesn’t want to be transparent about regarding executions.
So how has this decision been justified?
Given that the last military execution in the US was during WWII, whilst speaking to Real America’s Voice on the USS Lincoln, Hegseth exclaimed that he “liked our mentality during WWII, which was win; understand that when the enemy attacks you, you stand your ground”. However, the trouble with this justification is that publicly executing an individual for the crimes they committed 17 years ago is not standing one’s ground. The damage has already been done. If anything, the choice to heavily publicise Hasan’s execution does work to further endanger America, by potentially allowing Hasan to become a martyr for the very groups the administration is attempting to intimidate.
Hegseth also remarked that “people need to understand that there are serious consequences for these types of things”. To conclude that, to ensure people are aware that savagely murdering people is a wrong thing to do, requires broadcasting the execution of a man by firing squad is a farcical statement to make.
Ultimately, what most likely motivates this decision is the idea that it makes the current administration look tough and unrelenting against its international adversaries, rather than it being of any substantive benefit to the American people.
The clearest explanation that exists for this decision can best be understood when considering the administration’s tainted ethical record that is characterised by a cultivation of an appetite for punitive retribution.
As suggested, this is not the first time this administration has evoked such a hostile attitude. Trump’s remark that “a whole civilisation will die tonight” in April this year was considered a war crime itself, with it being the most dramatic threat of force since his 2017 UN assembly speech.
A domestic case of this was the decision to deport Kilmar Garcia in April 2025, where the administration pursued a serious level of executive overreach by deporting Garcia to El Salvador despite a 2019 court order protecting him from removal over fears of his prosecution back home. After much turbulence with the Supreme Court, the administration has since facilitated his return in June last year.
With the Republican Party struggling in the polls ahead of the November midterms, the proposed broadcast is symbolic of the administration’s desperate attempt to demonstrate its strength. After all, while Hasan faces a literal execution, the Trump administration may be facing a political one of its own, with the Democrats being favoured to take over Congress.
Image: Flickr
Comments