Even the death-penalty crowd wants the cameras off

Pete Hegseth has managed to make supporters of a death sentence explain that they did not order the entertainment package.

Republican Rep. Austin Scott says he "absolutely" supports executing Nidal Malik Hasan but objects to livestreaming it, calling that "what jihadists do." This is a fairly substantial complaint from somebody who agrees with the punishment. The disagreement begins when the defense secretary reaches for the camera.

The more awkward witness is Sean MacFarland, the retired lieutenant general who commanded Fort Hood and says he approved Hasan's death sentence. He now questions whether carrying it out there and streaming it would be "justice, vengeance, or a mere spectacle for the masses." Hard to dismiss that as the squeamishness of someone unfamiliar with the case.

Keep the decisions separate. Hasan was convicted of the 2009 attack that killed 13 people; the Pentagon says President Trump approved execution by firing squad, scheduled for December 3. The method is how the sentence would be carried out. Public viewing is an additional choice. Pentagon officials confirmed the livestream plan on October 8, promising details later. It remains an announced plan, not a completed execution or proof that every legal hurdle has disappeared. AP reports that a civilian-court habeas petition could significantly delay it.

Hegseth's explanation is that people need to understand there are "serious consequences." Apparently the death sentence requires a visual aid. Rep. Andy Ogles supplies the approving response:"We will be watching." That establishes demand. It does not establish a military purpose.

There is a respectable argument for letting the public scrutinize what its government does in its name. But scrutiny should include the decision to broadcast, not merely the broadcast itself. House Armed Services' top Democrat, Adam Smith, says justice should be taken seriously rather than turned into a spectacle. Fine. Now ask for the paperwork.

Army Regulation 190-55 gives the provost marshal general authority to approve waivers consistent with controlling law and regulations; waiver requests require an analysis of expected benefits and senior legal review. Congress should demand any such request, the legal reasoning and the claimed benefit of adding a worldwide audience. A television interview is not a substitute for that analysis.

Sen. Jack Reed warns the stream would be a gift to terrorist recruiters. That is a warning, not a proven outcome. Hegseth's consequences argument deserves the same discipline: an assertion about what viewers will learn is not evidence that this broadcast would make anyone safer.

Victims' families should not have to serve as an all-purpose justification for an official's programming decisions. Nor should soldiers be handed the reputational consequences of a spectacle because a civilian boss likes the picture.

The bipartisan objections matter because they separate punishment from promotion. The useful follow-up would be oversight. If Congress stops at posting its disgust, Hegseth gets the show and everyone else gets a statement explaining they preferred the book.

Even the death-penalty crowd wants the cameras off

Sources