Pete Hegseth degrades military justice with a streamed execution
By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta ·
Pete Hegseth trades military dignity for digital spectacle by livestreaming an execution, forfeiting institutional legitimacy for political bravado when the state treats law as public theater.
The Trump administration is wrong. By planning to livestream the execution of Nidal Hasan, it is trading the dignity of the military process for a digital spectacle. Justice is a matter of record and result. It is not a broadcast event. When the state treats a death sentence as a media product, it stops practicing law and starts practicing theater.
The carnival of the state
According to BBC reporting, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon will livestream the execution of Nidal Hasan on December 3. Hasan is a former Army major. Al Jazeera notes that he killed unarmed active-duty soldiers and a retired serviceman at Fort Hood in Texas. That attack injured others. Hasan was paralyzed from the waist down after base police shot him during the shooting. He was sentenced to death in August 2013.
The administration claims this is about deterrence. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin says the punishment must fit the crime. He argues that no one has to watch if they do not choose to. This is the mechanism of the Execution of Rainey Bethea. Rainey Bethea was the last person publicly executed in Kentucky, who confessed to the rape and killing of a 70-year-old woman named Lishia Edwards and was convicted of her rape and publicly hanged in Owensboro. In both cases, the state uses a public spectacle to assert dominance, risking a descent into a carnival of sadism.
This approach mirrors the federal death penalty resumption under the Trump administration. During that time, the government executed 13 prisoners and ended a moratorium to do so. Now, the administration seeks to move the gallows into the cloud.
The fragility of the process
The plan has split the administration's own allies. Senator Lisa Murkowski says she expects such things from terrorists and dictators. CBS News notes that Senator Thom Tillis called Hegseth a failed leader. He warned that terrorist groups will use the stream as a recruiting tool. Vice President JD Vance cast doubt on whether the plan will proceed. He said he would not watch it.
President Donald Trump says he will make the final decision. He notes there are two schools of thought. He claims showing the execution might stop others from committing similar crimes. This is a gamble with institutional legitimacy.
The administration relies on a maximalist interpretation of the unitary executive theory. This theory expands presidential power over the executive branch. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, military executions require presidential approval. If this proceeds, it will be the first military execution since 1961.
A borderless collision
Politico reports that the plan has created a rare moment of unity in Australia. Labor, the Coalition, One Nation, and the Greens all reject the stream. Assistant Minister for Defence Peter Khalil said he does not agree with the plan. Khalil worked in Iraq’s transitional government.
Australia has a long record of rejecting the death penalty. All its jurisdictions abolished the practice by 1985. On March 11, 2010, the Federal Parliament passed laws to bar its return. Australian law even prohibits extraditing prisoners who face the death penalty.
The Australian parliament is now debating laws to protect users from serious harms on social media. However, the eSafety regulator stated it lacks the power to prospectively block material. This is a procedural failure. Australia's moral unanimity is useless if its regulatory machinery cannot stop the import of a foreign spectacle.
The administration is confusing power with authority. Power is the ability to pull a trigger and broadcast it. Authority is the legitimacy that makes the law worth following. By turning a firing squad into a livestream, the Pentagon is spending capital it cannot refill.
The decision to broadcast this execution is not a legal necessity. It is a political choice to prioritize bravado over the passive virtues of the court. If the state adopts the tools of the dictator to punish a terrorist, it loses the right to claim it is different from the terrorist. The result will not be deterrence. It will be a loss of prestige that no amount of leadership can repair.
Sources
- Politico: Rejection of streamed execution unites Australia — but sets collision course with Trump
- CBS News: DHS secretary defends livestream of Fort Hood shooter's execution, says he doesn't see an "elevated risk" to U.S.
- Al Jazeera: US Homeland Security secretary sees no ‘risk’ from livestreamed execution
- BBC: Public executions in the US stopped nearly a century ago - why are they resuming now?