M2TS

By Christopher Moore | Moore 2 the Story
Draft — October 9, 2026

I started looking into Nidal Hasan’s execution with a question that wasn’t particularly sophisticated.

Why the fuck is this guy still alive?

He murdered thirteen people at Fort Hood in 2009. He was convicted of attempting to murder thirty-two others. He was sentenced to death in 2013. Now, seventeen years after the attack, we’re finally talking about carrying out the sentence.

I think he deserved it years ago. I have no sympathy for him.

But then I got to the livestream.

And my question changed.

Why the fuck does this need a broadcast?

I’m a Marine Corps combat veteran. Betraying the people beside you and the uniform you wear lands pretty hard with me. Hasan doesn’t need me to explain why what he did was monstrous.

My government does need to explain what it’s doing now.

Apparently, wanting both things makes this complicated. I thought it was just being a citizen.

Hasan is scheduled to face a firing squad at Fort Hood on December 3, at 1 p.m. Central. Trump approved his death sentence on October 2, according to the execution order reported by Task & Purpose. The Pentagon subsequently confirmed plans to livestream it.

The broadcast remains an announced plan. On October 9, Vice President JD Vance questioned whether it would happen and said he wouldn’t watch. Even inside the administration, the livestream apparently isn’t a settled matter.

Fort Hood memorial ceremony, November 10, 2009. Featured photo: U.S. Army / Wikimedia Commons (public domain).

Justice apparently needs a production crew now.

Before anybody decides questioning the cameras makes me a Hasan sympathizer, consider Alonzo Lunsford. He survived seven gunshot wounds in the attack. Speaking to the BBC, he supported the firing squad while questioning an uncensored public broadcast. The Guardian reported his comments: “for me personally, I don’t agree with that.” He also said victims and their families should be able to watch.

I’m not going to borrow his suffering to certify my opinion. His reaction does demonstrate that supporting the punishment doesn’t require applauding every decision surrounding it.

Seventeen Years Deserves a Better Answer Than “Appeals” or “Obama Wouldn’t Do It”

My initial assumption was that somebody had spent years refusing to pull the lever.

Then I read the timeline.

Annoying thing about research: sometimes it interrupts a perfectly good rant.

At the time of Hasan’s trial, military law prohibited accepting a guilty plea to an offense for which death could be imposed. Admitting he was the shooter did not let the government skip a capital trial. Congress later changed that provision; the statute’s amendment history explains it.

After sentencing came post-trial processing and mandatory appellate review. Presidents couldn’t substitute their personal certainty for those requirements.

But I still wanted to know where the years went.

The military appellate opinion describes unresolved defense submissions already more than a year overdue in early 2017. Hasan requested self-representation for those submissions that February. The convening authority approved the sentence in March. His initial Army appellate brief wasn’t submitted until November 2019.

The Army appellate court affirmed in December 2020. The higher military court’s revised decision followed in March 2024. The Supreme Court denied review on March 31, 2025.

That is a lot of processing and preparation. The dates don’t tell me who deserves blame for every month. They do tell me that “Obama wouldn’t execute him” is a lousy substitute for knowing when the case actually cleared direct review.

It hadn’t cleared that review under Obama, Trump’s first administration or Biden.

I can think the wait was outrageous and still get the chronology right. My anger doesn’t get to rearrange the calendar.

Presidential approval was still required after direct review. Hasan can also pursue a separate federal civilian challenge and request a stay.

So why now?

Hegseth pushed publicly for approval in September 2025. Trump approved the sentence this October. I haven’t found a complete public explanation for that interval or the choice of December 3.

The broader direction is clear enough. In April 2026, the Justice Department announced an expansion of execution methods, including firing squads, alongside efforts to expedite capital cases. That civilian policy didn’t authorize this military execution. It does tell us something about the administration’s priorities.

Direct review ended. Approval followed. That explains the legal opening.

It doesn’t explain the cameras.

Somebody Chose the Show

In his Human Events interview, Hegseth connected Fort Hood, Thursday and 1 p.m. to the location, weekday and approximate hour of Hasan’s attack. He invoked the military mentality of World War II and said people should watch to understand the consequences.

Asked about final requests, he answered: “Don’t care.”

Okay. I heard the tough part. Now I’d like the explanation part.

Returning Hasan to the place of his crimes may matter deeply to survivors. Lunsford’s reaction makes that clear. There are practical arguments for firing squads, too, including difficulties obtaining lethal-injection drugs.

But selecting a method and selling a broadcast are separate decisions.

ABC reports that internal Army planning had centered on lethal injection at Terre Haute. The location and method changed. Then we got the audience.

This feels very third-worldish to me. A public execution presented as proof that the people in charge are strong and you’d better believe it.

I can’t ignore this administration’s showmanship. Once you notice how often governing gets turned into a performance, the cameras become part of the story.

Pete Hegseth, our secretary of defense man-child—sorry, secretary of war man-child—looks to me like he’s putting on a performance of toughness. The title got bigger. I’d still like to hear the reasoning.

It reminds me of the Trump rally in Grand Island. Trump announced diesel relief, then signed the order onstage so the crowd could watch him do the thing he’d just announced.

I do stuff. Here’s the pen. Watch me do stuff.

There was actual policy underneath that performance. As I explained in my rally coverage, deferring a diesel tax bill isn’t the same as canceling it. But the stagecraft was easy to recognize: make the exercise of authority something the audience can applaud.

I get the same vibe from Hegseth.

Except “watch me change the rules on diesel taxes” and “watch me order the United States military to execute somebody on American soil” are very, very, very different propositions.

One changes what happens at the pump. The other ends a human life under government authority.

I think Hasan earned his sentence. That doesn’t make the power to carry it out just another prop for the tough-guy routine.

Trump approved the sentence. Hegseth is helping turn its execution into a public event. I want to know why the performance is necessary, and who it’s supposed to serve.

That looks to me like a demonstration of power. Hegseth’s own explanation makes the intended symbolism pretty hard to miss. I don’t need to invent a secret meeting to notice a public performance. I do need more evidence before claiming I know every motive behind it.

Hegseth also leaned on Obama’s supposed description of Fort Hood as “workplace violence.” The government’s handling of the attack and victims’ recognition deserves scrutiny. But in a 2013 counterterrorism address, Obama explicitly connected Fort Hood to violent jihad and discussed it within the threat of terrorism.

If we’re going to drag Obama into this, we can bring the rest of the record with him.

The 2011 Senate investigation found that the Army and FBI collectively had enough information to detect Hasan’s radicalization but failed to respond effectively. Sanitized evaluations. An inadequate inquiry. Unresolved disagreements between investigative offices.

As a mechanic, I know fixing the final broken part doesn’t explain why everybody ignored the warning lights.

Executing Hasan answers for his crimes. It doesn’t answer for the government’s failures before them.

The Footage Can Outlive the Man

This is where I started getting more concerned about the livestream.

A George Washington University study, using Hasan’s writings, mental-health records and direct correspondence, reports that he wanted the death penalty because he believed it would make him a martyr.

That was his expressed ambition at the time. I can’t tell you what he wants today, and I can’t prove a broadcast will recruit anybody.

I can ask why we’re considering handing propagandists footage of the ending he once said he wanted.

Obama confronted a related problem after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. Bin Laden was buried at sea, leaving no accessible grave. The September 11 Memorial & Museum explains that the burial was intended to prevent his gravesite from becoming a shrine for followers.

Obama also withheld graphic photographs of the body. In remarks reproduced in the May 4 White House briefing, he warned that the images could incite violence or become propaganda.

“We don’t need to spike the football,” he said.

I think he understood something worth remembering: you can kill the man and still make a stupid decision about the pictures.

Withholding photographs didn’t erase bin Laden’s followers or stop every claim of martyrdom. Burial at sea and withholding graphic imagery were attempts to limit what those followers could use.

A raid and a judicial execution are different circumstances. The question of who gets to use the footage afterward is still relevant.

Hegseth can decide what the government broadcasts. He cannot decide what every viewer does with it.

The warning he intends can become the recruitment material somebody else wants. The original caption doesn’t follow every copy around the internet like a responsible adult.

Has anybody assessed that risk? What benefit outweighs it?

I’d like an answer more substantial than another reminder that America has guns. I own guns. I noticed.

Your Muslim Neighbor Didn’t Commit This Crime

I’m an atheist. I don’t owe Islam a defense, and I’m not interested in pretending Hasan’s Islamist extremism was irrelevant.

It was relevant. Report it accurately.

But I also don’t want Americans who had nothing to do with his crimes turned into supporting characters in somebody else’s revenge story.

The Senate investigation managed to hold both ideas at once: confront violent extremism and protect Muslims serving honorably from suspicion based merely on religious practice.

We should be able to manage that, too.

My concern is that a worldwide display of punishment, packaged around jihad and national strength, can pour gasoline on hostility toward ordinary Muslims. That is a risk I want examined. It isn’t proof that provoking Islamophobia is the administration’s purpose.

I don’t need to pretend I’ve found that proof to insist officials explain how they’re addressing the risk.

Hasan committed the crime. Your neighbor didn’t inherit his sentence because they pray differently than you.

And before anybody says the livestream is simply transparency: there is a serious argument there. If I support the state taking a life, I ought to understand what that means.

But I want transparency about the decisions, too. Who controls the feed? Will independent witnesses retain access? What happens if the execution goes wrong? Were victims consulted about the broadcast?

The Army’s execution regulation provides for controlled witnesses and confidential execution-team identities. Its sample media advisory prohibits recording devices in the witness room. That doesn’t automatically make a government livestream illegal. It does make me want to see the authorization and legal review.

Show me why this method was chosen. Why this location. Why this timing. Why the broadcast helps more than it harms.

I came into this thinking Hasan should have been executed a long time ago.

I still think that.

The research gave me a better understanding of the delay. It gave me considerably more questions about the show.

Fuck Nidal Hasan.

Now tell me why my government needs a camera.