Press one for “no,” press two for “fry that [censored] like a fish and put it on YouTube.”
On Dec. 3, 2026, Nidal Malik Hasan — the Islamic terrorist who murdered 13 people in Fort Hood, Texas — is scheduled for execution. While screaming “Allahu Akbar!” he opened fire on nearly 50 U.S. Army soldiers. Among his victims: Pvt. Francheska Velez, a 21-year-old pregnant woman who died while crying, “My baby! My baby!”
When Secretary of War Pete Hegseth proposed livestreaming Hasan’s execution, our mainstream media was aghast: How barbaric! Beyond disgusting! Why, it’s a violation of our moral values!
The blowback was fast and furious:
The Guardian: ‘Barbaric’ Firing Squad Livestream Ordered by Pete Hegseth
MS NOW: Pete Hegseth’s Public Execution Livestream Cannot Be Reconciled With Military Honor
The Atlantic: Public Execution Is Shameless and Ignoble
Al Jazeera: ‘Barbaric’: US Lawmakers Condemn Plan to Livestream Nidal Hasan’s Execution
National News Desk: ‘Beyond Disgusting’: Hegseth Faces Bipartisan Backlash Over Plan to Livestream Execution
CNN: Glorifying Violence is ‘Rampant Among the Leadership of Our Country’ Says Anti-Death Penalty Activist
New Republic: If the Nidal Hasan Execution Is Livestreamed, We Are a Barbaric Nation
Independent: Pete Hegseth Branded ‘Deeply Unwell’ as GOP and Dem Critics Pile on Over Livestream Execution: ‘Obscene Medieval Spectacle’
Bloomberg: Streaming Execution Would Be a National Security, Moral Failure
The Daily Beast: Pete Hegseth’s Soldiers Revolt Over Live Execution
Daily Kos: Hegseth Thinks a Firing-Squad Execution Is Entertainment
To summarize their objections: Public execution is barbaric, disgusting, and obscene. Tsk, tsk.
It’s no way to honor the 13 victims of the Fort Hood massacre! What a sad commentary on our moral values!
But Velez’s dead baby isn’t included in the “official” Fort Hood death toll. (Otherwise, it would be 14 deaths.)
Which is a curious commentary on our moral values, too.
Also curious is the execution date of Dec. 3: It’s the birthday of the late Terri Schiavo — a woman whom the same mainstream media led to the gallows. Just one month after her mother and father lost their fight to keep her alive, The New York Times described the removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube as “Dignity for the Dying.”
But make no mistake, it was an execution: It was a deliberate act, authorized by the government, to terminate Schiavo’s life.
Of course, Schiavo’s death happened off-camera. The public wasn’t allowed to watch. Everything happened behind closed doors.
When it comes to life, death, and the sanctity of the soul, the media’s morality is schizophrenic. On one hand, it’s “barbaric” to livestream the execution of Hasan — an Islamic terrorist who murdered 13 14 people.
It’s simply not civilized!
But on the other hand, executing a disabled woman — and overruling the objections of her mother, father, and more — was considered “death with dignity.” Ain’t that a kick in the head?
And that’s not all: Time Magazine and Cosmopolitan also published glowing, celebratory puff-pieces about a woman who filmed and streamed her abortion on social media. Even though she admitted making the video as visceral as possible:
There are three options for a first-trimester abortion: medical abortion, which is the pill; a surgical abortion with IV sedation, where you're asleep through the whole thing; and a surgical abortion with local anesthesia during which you're awake. Women are most terrified of being awake.
I could have taken the pill, but I wanted to do the one that women were most afraid of. I wanted to show it wasn't scary — and that there is such a thing as a positive abortion story. It's my story.
[…]
[E]very time I watch the video, I love it. I love how positive it is. I think that there are just no positive abortion stories on video for everyone to see. But mine is.
Question: Why was it moral to broadcast the death of an innocent unborn baby — but immoral to broadcast the death of an unrepentant mass-murderer?
I could write (so much) more about media hypocrisy and its sliding scale of morality, but let’s move on. Because this is a yuuuge topic — and media bias is just a small part of it.
It’s a story with no shortage of moving parts.
Some people oppose the death penalty as a matter of policy, so naturally they’re also against it being livestreamed. Others are okay with the death penalty, but find the livestreaming idea abhorrent — that it’s inconsistent with the kind of country we should strive to be. To promote the sanctity of life, they say, the last thing we ought to do is encourage people to watch a snuff film.
Others say the exact opposite: Publicly executing mass murderers preserves the sanctity of life because it deters, punishes, and penalizes evil.
Therefore, the more people that witness an execution, the better.
Dan Carlin recorded an amazing podcast on the history of war, death, and executions as forms of entertainment. I can’t recommend it enough: Until modern times, executions were public events. Tens of thousands would travel from near and far — and spectators rented windows and balconies to get the best view. There was food, drinks, booze, singing, dancing — and even souvenirs!
A public execution was fun for the whole family! It’s like going to Disneyland!
England didn’t end public executions until 1868. America stopped in 1936.
This means that not having public executions is a recent development. For most of recorded history, public executions were the norm — not the exception.
How the American people feel about it is a bit of a mystery. Polling data is all over the place: An overwhelming majority opposed televising the execution of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, 73% to 24%. But another poll had two-thirds of Americans supporting televised executions — with 21% saying they’d personally pay money to watch Osama bin Laden get put to death.
My best guess for untangling these contradictions? Our support for public executions correlates with our degree of revulsion for the criminal. (The bin Laden opinion poll was conducted in early 2004, when the horror of 9/11 was still fresh in our minds.)
But the bin Laden poll still had a very important caveat: 54% said they wouldn’t view the execution.
This means that most of the people who favored making bin Laden’s execution public had absolutely no interest in watching it themselves.
And I agree: That’s the best public policy. The public should have the right to witness Hasan’s execution if it wants to.
Because otherwise, what’s the alternative? Government censorship?
Hasan is still being executed. A firing squad is still going to Swiss cheese his body, whether it’s livestreamed or not.
He was a terrorist; on December 3 he’ll become a Wiffle ball bat.
Hiding the cameras doesn’t change the reality. All it does is hide it.
Our tax dollars are paying for it — so why shouldn’t we be allowed to watch?
Personally, I wouldn’t watch it, because seeing someone get riddled with bullet holes isn’t my idea of a good time. Even if he’s a terrorist dirtbag who 100% deserves it.
Because it offends my notion of morality.
But the government executing people behind locked doors — barring cameras and censoring information — offends me a helluva lot more.
DJT: Dead Jihadi Television. You don’t have to watch it to support it.
Let’s roll.