The Nidal Malik Hasan livestream execution plan has triggered international condemnation after the US government announced that the execution of the former Army psychiatrist convicted of killing 13 people at Fort Hood would be broadcast live on December 3.
The plan has drawn criticism from politicians, religious leaders, human rights organisations and legal experts, with opponents describing it as barbaric, disturbing and reminiscent of public executions associated with authoritarian governments.
The United Nations human rights office warned on Friday that broadcasting the execution would amount to a public execution and could breach the absolute prohibition of torture.
Hasan, now 56, was sentenced to death by a military jury in 2013 after being convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.
The announcement has intensified debate over capital punishment, human dignity and the limits of government authority in carrying out criminal sentences.
US Plan to Livestream Nidal Malik Hasan’s Execution
The Pentagon confirmed on Thursday that Hasan’s execution would be livestreamed on December 3, according to The Guardian.
The decision follows approval by President Donald Trump, who authorised the firing-squad execution on the recommendation of Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, the report said.
Hegseth defended the plan by arguing that the public should understand the consequences of committing serious crimes.
Speaking to conservative broadcaster Real America’s Voice, he was asked whether Hasan had made any final requests.
“Don’t care. We’ll see him on December 3,” Hegseth replied.
His comments have provoked further criticism from opponents who believe broadcasting an execution would turn a legal punishment into a public spectacle.
The proposed livestream is particularly controversial because executions in the United States have been conducted privately for decades, while courts have previously blocked attempts by media organisations to televise executions.
UN Human Rights Office Raises Alarm
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that broadcasting Hasan’s execution would amount to a public execution and “breach the absolute prohibition of torture”.
The warning adds an international human rights dimension to the controversy, raising questions about whether the proposed broadcast would comply with the United States’ obligations under international law.
The debate also concerns the distinction between imposing a criminal sentence and deliberately exposing the condemned person’s death to a public audience.
Human rights advocates argue that livestreaming the execution would compound the cruelty associated with capital punishment and risk turning the taking of a human life into entertainment.
Supporters of greater public access, however, argue that transparency can help people understand how the state carries out the death penalty, particularly after controversies involving botched executions.
Hillary Clinton and US Politicians Condemn the Proposal
The proposed livestream has attracted criticism from politicians across the political spectrum, including former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Reacting on social media, Clinton wrote:
“A barbaric idea, beneath our dignity as a country. Push back on this.”
Her statement reflects concerns that broadcasting an execution could damage the country’s international reputation and undermine its claims to uphold human dignity.
Yassamin Ansari, the first Iranian American Democrat elected to the US Congress, also criticised the proposal.
“In Trump’s America, we’re doing public executions now. WTF. This is what happens under brutal dictatorships like Iran and Afghanistan. It’s all part of Trump’s authoritarian takeover of the United States,” she posted.
Her remarks compared the proposal with public executions associated with governments accused of authoritarian practices.
However, criticism has not been limited to Democrats. Republican Senator Thom Tillis also opposed the idea of broadcasting Hasan’s death, even while maintaining that Hasan should face the death penalty.
Tillis described the livestream proposal as “beyond disgusting”, arguing that public executions were associated with oppressive regimes.
British Minister Calls the Plan Disturbing
The British government has also distanced itself from the proposal.
Bridget Phillipson, the UK’s equalities minister and Labour Party chair, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that she found the idea “rather disturbing”.
Phillipson acknowledged that the decision belonged to the US government but stressed that the two countries’ close relationship did not mean Britain supported every American policy.
“They are a close ally. Does that mean that we support everything the US government does? No.”
The response highlights the diplomatic difficulty facing allies of the United States when Washington adopts policies that provoke international human rights concerns.
Britain abolished the death penalty during the 1960s, making the proposed public broadcast particularly controversial in a country that no longer permits capital punishment.
Who Is Nidal Malik Hasan?
Nidal Malik Hasan is a former US Army psychiatrist who was convicted of carrying out a deadly shooting at Fort Hood, a military installation in Texas, on November 5, 2009.
He opened fire with a handgun at a medical facility where soldiers were waiting for medical checks before deployment.
Thirteen people were killed, while 32 others were the victims of attempted premeditated murder convictions. Twelve of those killed and 30 of the wounded were soldiers.
Hasan was shot by a police officer during his arrest and left partly paralysed. He now uses a wheelchair.
A military jury sentenced him to death in 2013 following his conviction on the murder and attempted-murder charges.
His case has remained significant in discussions about security, military justice and the death penalty in the United States.
The proposed execution would be carried out by firing squad, a method that has rarely been used by the US military in modern times.
First US Military Firing-Squad Execution in Decades
If carried out as announced, Hasan’s execution is expected to be the first firing-squad execution by the US military since 1945.
That year, Army Private Eddie Slovik was executed for desertion during the Second World War.
The last US military execution by any method took place in 1961, when John Bennett was hanged.
The proposed livestream would therefore combine an exceptionally rare military execution method with a form of public broadcasting that experts say has no known precedent for a legal execution.
The unusual nature of the plan has intensified questions about why the government wants the public to witness the execution and what purpose the broadcast would serve.
Human Rights Groups Warn Against Turning Execution Into a Spectacle
Human rights advocates argue that livestreaming the execution would intensify the suffering associated with capital punishment while encouraging the public to view death as a spectacle.
Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, described the proposal as a “barbaric promotion of a culture of death and must be reconsidered”.
Adam Smith, the leading Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said the plan was “disturbing and makes a mockery of our legal system”.
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy also criticised the idea, describing public executions as “medieval”.
These reactions demonstrate the breadth of opposition to the proposed broadcast, including among people who may hold differing positions on capital punishment itself.
The controversy centres not only on whether Hasan should be executed, but also on whether the government should deliberately make his death available for public viewing.
Amnesty International Warns of Further Cruelty
Justin Mazzola, deputy director of research at Amnesty International USA, said livestreaming the execution would deepen the cruelty associated with capital punishment.
“Livestreaming the taking of a life by firing squad would only compound the cruelty of the death penalty and perpetuate the cycle of violence that the authorities purportedly seek to end.”
Mazzola also linked the controversy to the recent failed execution attempt involving Tennessee death-row prisoner Christa Pike.
He argued that the latest announcement demonstrated the need for US authorities to reconsider their approach to capital punishment.
“The US death penalty is irredeemably broken. It is high time that the US authorities, at all levels, use their power to show human rights leadership and end this ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment once and for all.”
Amnesty International’s position reflects its longstanding opposition to the death penalty, which it regards as a violation of human rights.
Experts Warn Livestream Could Create Security Risks
Beyond concerns about human dignity, some critics fear that broadcasting Hasan’s execution could produce unintended security consequences.
Ned Price, a former deputy to the US representative to the United Nations, warned that glorifying violence could help extremist organisations promote their narratives and recruit supporters.
He wrote on social media:
“You can take it from those of us who’ve spent years working on terrorism: the surest way to spawn more radicalized zealots is to glorify violence, embrace a cult of death, and create a martyr for the cause.”
Price continued:
“Or take it from [al-Qaida] and ISIS, whose tactics offer the closest modern-day approximation of Hegseth’s proposal. Either way, it’s hard to conjure a more vivid example of his trademark performative bravado, which routinely damages America’s image and, in this case, so ghoulishly leaves us more vulnerable.”
His comments reflect concerns that extremists could use footage of a public execution as propaganda.
Such concerns have become part of the broader argument over whether the proposed broadcast would serve a legitimate public interest or provide extremist groups with material to exploit.
Could Nidal Malik Hasan Challenge the Livestream in Court?
Legal experts have also questioned whether Hasan could challenge the planned execution or the decision to broadcast it.
Eugene Fidell, a military law specialist at Yale Law School, said Hasan could seek legal action to block the public display of his death.
Elisabeth Semel, co-director of the Death Penalty Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, questioned the government’s motivation for staging such an unusual spectacle.
“This is a president who’s about spectacle and that’s, I think, precisely the message that he intends to deliver,” she told the Associated Press.
The legal questions include the dignity of the condemned prisoner and whether broadcasting the execution could be challenged under applicable law.
It remains unclear whether Hasan will seek to block the livestream through civilian courts. Any such legal challenge could significantly delay the proceedings.
Debate Over Transparency and Public Accountability
Not all experts believe public access to executions is necessarily without justification.
Deborah Denno, a death penalty specialist at Fordham University, told the Associated Press that a livestream could increase transparency at a time when a botched execution in Tennessee had renewed questions about how authorities carry out death sentences.
The argument is that allowing the public to see the process could expose problems and encourage accountability.
Opponents counter that transparency does not necessarily require broadcasting the moment a prisoner is killed, particularly when the public display could undermine human dignity.
The disagreement illustrates the difficult balance between public oversight of government action and protections for people subjected to state punishment.
Public Executions Have Largely Disappeared Worldwide
Public executions were once carried out in various countries, but the practice has largely disappeared.
Amnesty International recorded at least 17 public executions in 2025, including 11 in Iran and six in Taliban-run Afghanistan.
Experts cited by The Guardian said no other country was known to televise or livestream legal executions.
In the United States, executions have been conducted privately for approximately nine decades. The hanging of Rainey Bethea in Kentucky in 1936 is generally regarded as the country’s last public execution, although another hanging reportedly took place in Missouri the following year.
The execution of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh in 2001 was made available to victims’ relatives through cloysed-circuit television, but it was not broadcast publicly.
The proposed livestream of Hasan’s execution would therefore represent a major departure from established American practice.
What Happens Next?
The Pentagon has announced December 3 as the date for Hasan’s execution, but legal challenges could affect whether the plan proceeds as scheduled.
The controversy has already generated criticism from US politicians, British officials, religious leaders, human rights organisations and legal specialists.
The United Nations human rights office has raised concerns about the implications of broadcasting the execution, while some experts have questioned whether the proposed livestream could be challenged in court.
Others argue that public access could improve transparency around the death penalty, particularly in light of recent execution failures.
The debate ultimately extends beyond Hasan’s conviction to broader questions about the use of capital punishment, the treatment of condemned prisoners and the limits of government power.
As December 3 approaches, the proposed livestream is likely to remain the subject of legal scrutiny and international discussion over whether a state execution should ever become a public broadcast.
