Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

“Public execution” sounds like a phrase pulled from a history book. Yet it may describe one of the biggest legal controversies of 2026.

Former Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan is scheduled for execution by firing squad on December 3. Hasan was convicted of killing 13 people and wounding 32 others during the 2009 Fort Hood attack.

The Pentagon has announced plans to livestream the execution. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the public should be able to watch and understand the consequences of such an attack.

However, the final details remain unsettled. President Donald Trump later suggested officials were still deciding whether the execution would actually be broadcast.

That leaves a pretty big question: Can the government legally livestream an execution?

Washington Gun Law President William Kirk recently stepped outside his usual Second Amendment lane to examine the history, rules and constitutional questions surrounding the plan.

The Firing Squad Is the Easy Part

Execution by firing squad is not automatically unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court upheld the method in an 1879 case involving a Utah prisoner. Several states still allow it, although its use remains rare.

Hasan’s execution would be the first carried out by the U.S. military since 1961. It would also be the military’s first execution by firing squad since 1945.

Because Hasan was convicted through the military justice system, his case follows different rules from a regular federal death penalty case. The president must personally approve a military death sentence before it can be carried out.

Trump reportedly approved Hasan’s execution on October 2nd.

Current Army regulations leave the execution method to the secretary of the Army. The rules previously specified lethal injection, but that language was removed in 2019. The current regulation, certified in 2023, directs Army officials to evaluate all lawful and feasible methods.

The Livestream Is the Legal Wild Card

Federal civilian execution rules expressly prohibit audio or visual recordings. Those rules also limit who may witness an execution.

Military regulations are different. They do not specifically mention livestreaming or recording.

That silence does not necessarily equal permission.

Army regulations still provide a limited list of people who may witness an execution. That list includes officials, attorneys, family members, certain victim representatives and two members of the media.

Broadcasting the event to millions of people would appear to blow straight through those limits.

Legal scholars disagree about whether military officials could waive the restriction. There is no Supreme Court decision directly addressing a government-sponsored livestream of an execution.

In other words, there is no clean yes-or-no answer waiting in a law book.

The Eighth Amendment Question

Hasan could argue that turning his execution into a worldwide spectacle violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Article 55 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice contains similar protections.

The firing squad itself has already survived constitutional review. The unresolved question involves the public presentation surrounding it.

SEE ALSO: Colt Python Is Back: Should You Buy New or Vintage?

No state currently livestreams executions. Public executions largely disappeared from American life by the 1930s. Modern executions take place before small groups of approved witnesses.

That long-standing practice could matter if a court considers whether the broadcast violates today’s accepted standards of decency.

Hasan could also file a federal court challenge seeking to delay the execution or block the broadcast. His direct military appeals are exhausted, but other legal avenues remain available.

We Have Been Down Part of This Road Before

Before Timothy McVeigh’s 2001 execution, an internet company asked for permission to broadcast it publicly. A federal judge rejected that request because federal prison rules prohibited recording.

The government instead provided a secure closed-circuit feed for bombing survivors and victims’ families.

That case is not a perfect match. McVeigh was a civilian federal prisoner, while Hasan remains under military authority. More importantly, the government itself is proposing the Hasan broadcast.

That makes the current situation largely uncharted territory.

Legal Does Not Always Mean Wise

Kirk’s breakdown ultimately lands on a distinction worth considering.

The government may possess the power to execute Hasan. A firing squad may also survive constitutional scrutiny. Neither point automatically answers whether the death should become a livestreamed public event.

Supporters may view the broadcast as transparency, deterrence or long-awaited justice for the victims.

Opponents may see a spectacle that shifts attention back toward the killer. Some also fear the footage could become propaganda for extremists or spread to children online.

Those are separate questions from supporting or opposing the death penalty itself.

Hasan committed an undeniable atrocity. The harder question is whether justice requires a worldwide audience.

What do you think? Should the government livestream the execution, keep it limited to approved witnesses or reconsider the death penalty altogether?

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***

https://gunsamerica.com/listings/search