The Pentagon announced it would livestream a firing-squad execution. Then the president said he absolutely approved it, and a few hours later said he wasn't involved at all. By the end of the weekend, the Speaker of the House, the Vice President, and a pile of Republican senators were lining up to say they wouldn't be watching.
A Livestream Nobody Wants to Own
Here's where things stand, per CBS News. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the Dec. 3 execution of Nidal Hasan, the former Army major convicted of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, would be livestreamed. It would be carried out by firing squad. That's the plan, or it was the plan, or it might still be the plan. Nobody seems sure.
Over the weekend, President Trump said the administration was still deciding whether to go through with the broadcast that the Defense Secretary had already announced. Read that again. The announcement came first. The determination about whether to do the thing is happening afterward.
This is the policy equivalent of mailing the wedding invitations and then asking your fiancé if they're open to the idea.
Absolutely, I Did. Also, I Wasn't Involved.
The best part of this story is the president's relationship with his own decision. Asked Friday whether he authorized the livestream, Trump said, "Absolutely, I did." Clean. Confident. Owned.
Then, later that same day, he told CNY Central Syracuse that he "wasn't involved in that decision." He added that he understood it was made to "have it serve as an example." So he approved it, but he wasn't involved, but he gets the reasoning, but it's not really his call.
On Saturday, he offered a third act. "There are two thoughts: don't show it and show it," Trump told reporters. "I know what the military would like to do, but I'll make a decision." Maybe other people won't do what Hasan did if they watch him die, he suggested. Three statements in about 24 hours, and the only consistent thread is that responsibility keeps sliding off him like an egg off a Teflon pan.
Republicans Suddenly Discover Squeamishness
Credit where it's due: a bunch of Republicans found their spines on this one, and fast. House Speaker Mike Johnson told CBS News that "there are colleagues who have concerns," including the fear that a video would become "a recruiting tool for future terrorists." He said he wouldn't be watching and planned to relay the worries to the White House.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski was blunter. "I would expect this from terrorists and dictators, but not here in America," she wrote on X, adding that it would hand Hasan "the martyrdom he seeks." Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said, "The death penalty is not entertainment." Rep. Ann Wagner of Missouri wrote that "the United States of America does not and should not livestream executions."
None of these people are squishes. These are the folks who nodded along through four years of everything else. When the livestream-a-killing idea is too much for them, that tells you something about the idea.
Vance Takes the Classic Both-Ways Exit
Vice President JD Vance managed to say two things at once, which is his specialty. He said he wouldn't be watching if it's livestreamed. He also said, "I don't know that that's actually going to happen."
So the second-highest official in the executive branch is learning about his own government's plans the way the rest of us are: from the news. He pivoted to reminding everyone that Hasan "brutally murdered a lot of innocent people," which is true and which nobody disputes. The Fort Hood victims are not the issue here. The issue is whether the federal government should produce a broadcast of a state killing, and Vance very carefully did not answer that.
Mullin's Defense: Just Don't Look
Someone had to defend the plan, and that someone was Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on "Face the Nation." Asked whether the administration risks turning Hasan into a martyr, Mullin said, "No one has to watch it."
That's the whole argument. It's a TV remote defense of a state execution. Pressed on whether the broadcast could radicalize others, he pivoted to a warning: "If you attack America, we will come after you, and we will make sure that the punishment fits the crime." That's a fine sentiment for a speech. It does not answer the question of what a polished, shareable video of a jihadist-inspired killer's death does for the people who admire him.
The martyrdom concern isn't a liberal talking point here. It's coming from Murkowski, Cramer, and the Speaker. Mullin's answer to all of them was essentially a shrug.
The Dingo Take
"No one has to watch it." That's the Homeland Security Secretary's entire case for broadcasting a firing squad, and it's the same logic as leaving a burning building on the sidewalk and telling people they're free to walk the other way. The point of a livestream is that people watch it. That's the product. You can't build a broadcast and then act shocked that anyone might tune in, clip it, and share it.
The real tell is the pile of Republicans bailing out. When Johnson, Murkowski, Cramer, and Vance are all hedging in the same weekend, the plan isn't a bold stand for justice. It's a stunt that nobody wanted to be holding when the music stopped. And the president can't even keep his own story straight about whether he signed off.
Hasan killed 13 people and deserves the punishment the courts handed down. Nobody needs a camera crew to make that true. If the administration can't tell the difference between justice and content, maybe somebody should ask who exactly this broadcast is for.
Comments