Who is Nidal Malik Hasan and why does the Pentagon want to livestream his execution?

The United States is getting ready for a military execution that has sent shockwaves across the global debate surrounding justice, punishment and public broadcasting.

Nidal Malik Hasan, a former US Army psychiatrist convicted of killing 13 people at the Fort Hood military base in Texas in 2009, is due to be executed by firing squad on 3 December 2026.

The controversy began when US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon intended to livestream the execution. His rationale was that people should be aware of the consequences for such crimes.

The announcement has been opposed by politicians, religious leaders and human rights advocates, and President Donald Trump was still mulling over the decision on the evening of 10 October.

The debate surrounding Hasan's conviction now moves on and raises a broader point: should the government be providing an opportunity for the public to watch an execution?

What happened at Fort Hood in 2009?

On 5 November 2009, Hasan opened fire in a military processing centre at Fort Hood, the major US Army base in Texas, killing 13 and injuring a further 32.

At the time of the attack Hasan was a major in the army and a psychiatrist. His profession and the role of Fort Hood as a major military installation led to questions about his credibility as a defendant with security concerns.

Additionally, investigators examined his private and professional communications with the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an associate of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

His culpability for the attack was established when, during his court-martial, Hasan accepted responsibility for the attacks and provided a justification linked to US military activity in Muslim countries. Nevertheless, the military jury found him guilty.

He was convicted of the murders and attempted murders in August 2013. Five days later, the jury sentenced him to death. His conviction and sentence went through the military appeals system and, on 31 March 2025, the US Supreme Court declined to review his court-martial conviction.

Why is the execution taking place now?

His sentence in 2013 did not see him executed immediately, as is the norm when a death penalty is imposed in a military trial in the US.

The president has the authority to approve the death sentence of a military prisoner before the execution can be carried out.

On 2 October 2026, Trump approved Hasan's death sentence. Four days later, Acting Secretary of the Army Adam Telle ordered the execution to take place at Fort Hood on 3 December at 1pm Central Standard Time.

The decision followed on from the completion of the military appeals process.

Should the execution proceed, it would be the first by the US military since 1961, and the first by a firing squad since 1945.

It is a rare opportunity to witness a part of America's military justice system in action.

Why does the Pentagon want to broadcast it?

Hegseth defended the proposal to enable the public to watch an execution by stating that the public should understand the repercussions for such crimes. The Pentagon soon confirmed its decision to broadcast the execution.

The proposal has drawn attention to the difference between ensuring the punishment is public and the actual act of broadcasting it.

In the US, executions are normally held in controlled conditions, with access restricted to those in attendance. Making such an event public and available for viewing around the country is an innovative approach.

Proponents of the proposal may argue that the public should have the ability to see an event as a sign that those who commit these crimes will ultimately face the consequences.

Critics question if the proposal is more concerned with using state punishment as a spectacle than meeting the needs of the public.

The government can address the public's need for information and access to events through other means: by explaining the law and publishing the relevant records, and by enabling independent reporting. The debate is over whether the public needs visual evidence to exercise accountability.

Is live-streaming an execution legal?

The legal position is nuanced.

Reuters reported on 9 October that the announcement had raised questions about the application of US laws governing public executions and the broadcasting of graphic material.

Federal restrictions on recording and broadcasting executions in the federal prison system do not necessarily apply to military executions. That does not necessarily mean, however, that everything in the proposed livestream is lawful.

The Army's regulations also prohibit minors from witnessing the military execution. Legal experts have questioned how such rules would apply if a broadcast were made available online.

The international response to the announcement has offered an additional angle on the debate.

On 9 October, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric condemned the proposed livestream, with a statement that public execution broadcasts were abhorrent and that they could violate international rules and protections against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

It is the UN's stated human rights position, but not necessarily a formal judgment in relation to the legality of the proposed broadcast in the US.

As of 12 October, the questions surrounding the legality of the livestream remain open to debate.(

Why are politicians and religious leaders objecting?

The criticism has not been confined to capital punishment activists. Vice-President JD Vance expressed uncertainty over whether the livestream would proceed, while stating he would not watch the event.

On 10 October, Trump was also still considering the decision. The comments left the Pentagon's initial announcement in a precarious position.

At the same time, Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, condemned the proposal, arguing that the broadcasting would promote a culture of death. The objections raise a number of questions in terms of human dignity and the risk of children watching the event.

They add to the debate surrounding the government's role in executing punishments in accordance with legal procedures and whether such an action should be a public spectacle.

The objections are not meant to minimise the gravity of the Fort Hood attack or the jury's finding. They do raise a separate question as to how the government should go about executing a punishment that has legally been authorised.([Reuters][3])

What happens next?

The US Army has scheduled Hasan's execution for 3 December 2026. However, the final decision to allow the stream to be accessed is the government's, and the possibility of legal challenges means the announced plans are not definitive.

The question of how the US handles issues of military justice, public accountability and human rights remains a contentious issue.

The attack at Fort Hood, which claimed the lives of 13 and injured a further 32, has resulted in Hasan's conviction. The controversy surrounding the livestreaming of his execution is over the additional question of whether the state should broadcast the punishment as a communication of the consequences of the crime.

The question is not only of whether the law allows an execution. It is as to whether carrying out the punishment and broadcasting it should be seen as one decision.