The shortlist seems ironic for the United States. If the plan to broadcast live the execution of Nidal Malik Hasan, convicted of killing 13 people in 2009, is maintained, the country would apply methods used by its enemies: Iran, with which it is currently at war, and the Taliban, whom it fought for years in Afghanistan.
According to Amnesty International's count, which recorded 2,700 executions in 17 countries, only two states carried out public executions last year. Iran publicly executed 11 people and Afghanistan killed six. Scheduled for December 3 on the base of Fort Hood, Texas, the killing of Nidal Malik Hasan could be the first in the United States in almost 90 years.
Skip the ad
But, with less than two months to go before the deadline, many questions remain unclear: which platform will broadcast the images? Will the television channels be able to resume them? And what recourse could prevent retransmission? US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has confirmed his intention to make the execution available to the public. “He will be shot by soldiers, as it should be, and we will make sure that the public can witness it, that it is public,” he said on Wednesday. However, he did not specify either the channel or the internet platform that would be selected, nor the concrete terms of the retransmission. Donald Trump, for his part, approved the use of the firing squad, affirming that the condemned “deserves it”, without commenting on the Yes, sensitive subject of the broadcast.
A device still largely unknown
The Pentagon has not announced any broadcast on traditional television channels. The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) - the American regulator of the sector - Brendan Carr said he would rely on Pete Hegseth to decide whether the images could be broadcast on television. According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon did not indicate that the stream would be intended for traditional broadcasters. If ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox have not yet made their intentions known, the channels could nevertheless resume the stream if no restrictions were imposed on them.
According to experts cited by Reuters, the FCC would not have a clear legal basis to impose or prohibit the broadcast of a real event of this nature, subject to applicable legal limits, particularly in terms of obscenity. Other aspects of the organization remain unknown. The composition of the firing squad and the precise protocol of the shooting have not been made public. The army did not specify whether the families of the victims would be invited to witness the killing, nor how the soldiers responsible for the shooting would be selected.
Uncertain legal remedies
The possibility of contesting the retransmission appears limited. According to Brenner Fissell, professor of law at Villanova University and specialist in military justice, quoted by the Associated Press, “apart from Hasan, I am not sure that anyone else could” have standing to take legal action to obstruct the broadcast. Army rules governing military executions do not explicitly mention their worldwide broadcast. This does not mean, however, that a legal avenue necessarily exists to prevent it.
The convicted person could in particular seize a federal court within the framework of a so-called habeas corpus procedure, which makes it possible to challenge the legality of a detention or a measure of deprivation of liberty. Eugene R. Fidell, visiting lecturer at Yale Law School and specialist in military law, believes, however, that the possibilities of appeal against the terms of the execution “are few”.
Skip the ad
The expert is particularly skeptical about the hypothesis of action taken by parents anxious to prevent their children from seeing the images. “To argue that the military cannot broadcast the execution live because some parents would not be able to prevent their child from watching it on a computer seems to me to be a very unlikely legal action,” he told The Associated Press.
Another, more novel avenue was raised by Brenner Fissell: that of the military regulations prohibiting those under 18 from attending an execution. “It’s explicit,” he notes. The question is whether a live broadcast equates to presence. I think this goes against the spirit of the regulation.” But the text was not designed to support spectators located at a distance, even less in front of a screen. “This question has not been sufficiently examined,” believes the law professor.
A broad opposition
The project encounters unusual opposition even in Republican ranks, although they are in favor of capital punishment. Vice President JD Vance expressed his reservations, without confirming that the administration would abandon the broadcast. “I see these ads. I don't know if this will happen. If it’s broadcast live, I won’t watch,” he said.
In the House of Representatives, Republican elected official Austin Scott denounced a practice that he associates with jihadists. “I fully support the death sentence, but live streaming executions is what jihadists do. America is better than that,” breathes the elected official. Republican Senator John Curtis said that “a civilization is damaged when it feeds an appetite for executions as a form of spectacle.”
If it goes ahead as announced, the execution would be the first carried out by the US military since 1961 and the first by firing squad since 1945. According to the Associated Press, the broadcast could also be the first public execution in the United States since two hangings in the 1930s, which drew crowds in Kentucky and Missouri. Since then, American executions have taken place behind closed doors. But between the reservations expressed in the Republican camp, international criticism and legal uncertainties, the Pentagon finds itself under pressure.
