Livestreaming execution as the American way

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth geared up for his “American Crusade” when he announced that the execution of a former U.S. Army major, Nidal Hasan, would be livestreamed to the public later this year. Whether the format would be pay-per-view remained unclear, but Hegseth made sure to highlight the “radical Islamic” character of the death-bound major. The glorification of “death and destruction from the sky all day long” has been a consistent theme in his moral philosophy, and the sentiment seems to be all too common: Violence is necessary, and it is perfectly natural. And to object to this doctrine is seen as blasphemy – that grave offense of which even Pope Leo XIV has been accused, simply for reiterating his opposition to the death penalty, citing Catholic doctrine.

That Hasan deserves to die is hardly in dispute, except among a dedicated few, though the decision to livestream his execution has raised eyebrows across the political spectrum. Even some Republican lawmakers called on Hegseth to cancel the plan, with Republican lawmaker Austin Scott reminding him that livestreaming executions is what extremists do.

U.S. President Donald Trump, on the other hand, seems to have no qualms about Hegseth’s plan. He knows show business, after all, and a spectacle like this is certain to deliver good ratings. What is all the fuss about, anyway? Hasn’t the spectacle of killing been normalized by now, after all that has been done with complete impunity? No way would Trump find anything wrong with livestreaming the execution of a man in a wheelchair, contrary to CNN’s later report. For it is, we are repeatedly told, perfectly natural.

Trump’s appeal to nature has been notable indeed. On his social media platform Truth Social, he posted a video of a British man being killed by a tiger after entering its enclosure, accompanied by the blunt comment: “Don’t ever mess with nature!” This was his warning: going against nature could lead to one’s demise. Perhaps all those who met their demise too early had gone against nature in their own ways. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here, and those who refuse to learn it risk confronting nature themselves.

It must be based on such a dictate of nature, then, that the U.S. government has been attacking international institutions intended to ensure accountability. International law is deemed unnatural – it presumes that it can save a man trapped in a tiger enclosure. The alternative is to let the laws of nature prevail. Forget philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who argued for a social contract to escape the state of nature where life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short,” and embrace the “continual fear, and danger of violent death” that he described. Or, better yet, be wise enough never to find yourself trapped with a wild beast.