There has been one interesting development in the discussion over the firing squad execution of convicted terrorist Nidal Hasan.

Yesterday, the Pentagon announced that the execution will be livestreamed to the public. Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed the news on X with a single word.

Correct. https://t.co/0SXJiqrDnR

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) October 8, 2026

The announcement of the livestreaming is not the interesting development. What is interesting was with this announcement, the conversation/debate over whether Nidal Hasan deserves the death penalty largely faded away. The conversation is now consumed by the “optics” of the situation. And I will say, people of good conscience are having honest disagreements over the livestream issue.

The closer one is to the situation, the more support there generally appears to be for making the execution public.

You know, the more they fulminate, the more I support the idea. I think it’s good that our enemies and our people see that we are committed to justice. I’m not ashamed that we’re killing this bastard. And I think we ought to see it. https://t.co/lhP3VtTTj4

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) October 9, 2026

I was on Fort Hood with my children that day. Nearly 17 years later, I still remember the fear and uncertainty. I wholeheartedly support this decision, though I remain conflicted about whether I’ll watch. Perhaps witnessing the end of the man responsible will bring some measure…

— SharrellAnne (@SharrellAnne2) October 9, 2026

On the opposite side, there are moral and faith-based arguments against it.

For those insisting a public execution is necessary to deter future terrorists:

Nidal Hasan murdered his victims in an act of jihad. He admired suicide bombers. He wanted to die but was taken into custody. He dismissed his defense attorneys, indicating he wants
the death…

— Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) October 9, 2026

That public executions are a ritual usually reserved for Islamists? https://t.co/O3DWF7r1vj

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) October 9, 2026

Here’s the problem. There are a whole host of people on the left who are demanding that the right live up to a moral and religious code, that they themselves do not follow, in order to get the end result that they want. After all, these are the same people who were completely FINE with an abortion being filmed and recorded for public consumption. These are some of the same people who have no problem with Charlie Kirk’s assassination being used to mock his life, legacy, and family. But the firing squad execution of a terrorist who took 13 lives – 14 if you count the unborn child of Private Francheska Velez – is apparently a bridge too far. Why? The right is having an honest conversation about life, death, and the open public view of the execution, but the same left who has the gall to avoid and/or deny all the video Hamas provided for their crimes on October 7, 2023, is demanding that people of faith and conscience find an execution offensive.

The problem the left has, of course, is that they have no ideological consistency on this issue. Those on the right who are objecting on faith-based grounds are also pro-life, and thus are consistent in their views that life in sacred. The left has no such scruples. It’s telling that they are counting on OTHER people to have scruples, instead of presenting a logical argument that fits their moral framework.

The simplest answer is the one that the left likes to repeatedly parrot when it comes to abortion: if you don’t like it, don’t have one. Well, if you don’t like the firing squad execution of Nidal Hasan being livestreamed, don’t watch. I didn’t say that this was the moral solution or a faith-based rationale, I said this was the SIMPLEST answer.

The reality of the livestream situation is this: YouTube certainly will not allow this to be streamed on their platform. It will likely not be broadcast by news stations, either. It will probably be streamed through the Pentagon’s own website. This isn’t going to be filmed like a scene in a movie, with multiple angles and dramatic lighting. The execution is scheduled for 1 pm in the afternoon, and the camera will probably be at a fixed angle at a distance. We’re not getting up close and personal. The camera will probably be no closer than those who are attending the execution in person. It will undoubtedly be dramatic, and it will be final. There will not be a Pike mistake with a firing squad.

The question of whether the death penalty is moral, just, or fits into a “modern society” that has so sanitized death and hidden away the dying will continue to be debated. What is not in question is that under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Nidal Hasan was found guilty of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder during his court-martial. Hasan has exhausted all his appeals under the UCMJ, and will now die for his crimes. This is not a civilian court under civilian law, this is a military court dealing with a former officer who committed a horrific act of terrorism. This cannot be treated in the same way as a state or federal execution in a civilian case.

Everyone is accountable for their own conscience. Many will choose to watch the execution, and have no issues with it. Others will not, and will regret the livestreaming, but not the execution itself. Others will say that Hasan should not be executed at all, because they are pro-life in all cases, for the unborn and for convicted criminals. And all of those are legitimate positions. What is not legitimate, and is frankly reprehensible, are those who have no issues with livestreaming an abortion, mock Charlie Kirk’s death by an assassin’s bullet with tasteless costumes or stupidly offensive crap, and then whine about Nidal Hasan receiving his sentence while being livestreamed. Sorry, find your own conscience.

Featured image: original Victory Girls art by Darleen Click