I find it incredibly funny, hypocritical and par for the course (yes, a seemingly oxymoronic set of feelings) that a raft of “celebrities” have come out in protest of the Pentagon’s plan to livestream the execution of Nidal Malik Hasan.
A short history lesson: in 2009, Hasan, who was then a major in the U.S. Army, was stationed at Fort Hood near Killeen and went on a shooting spree that left 13 people dead and more than 30 others injured.
His rampage ended after he was shot, which left him paralyzed; in 2013, he was convicted in a military court on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder. The investigation showed that Hasan had ties to Islamic terrorists and was becoming radicalized.
So these Hollywood folks, along with elected officials, media outlets, talk-show types and even novelists are speaking out against the horror of a broadcast execution. They question the need, they question the compassion of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, they even question the legality of it.
Leaving aside what I think for a moment, I find it odd that these people who make millions turning out television episodes, movies, graphic novels, books and news events that depict horrors both real and perceived that make a court-ordered execution look tame would find this unpleasant.
I fully believe that they have the right to be upset about the idea of broadcasting a killing, regardless of reason. But to lecture the U.S. military about an execution when films like “The Running Man” (a film where an execution of a criminal was turned into a game show) exist seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black. Sure, one’s make-believe and one isn’t; believing the made-up one is OK, particularly when it makes money, is a skosh hypocritical.
Another source of hypocrisy that I see is that there was not this kind of sympathy shown for Hasan’s victims (or many other victims of violent crimes). It seems to me that in order to be seen as compassionate, the families of the people brutally murdered and those people tragically injured need to see a little bit of that concern.
I won’t expound on that except to say that there’s a Dr. Gad Saad who coined the phrase “suicidal empathy,” which this is a prime example of. He wrote a book on the subject, which is worth a read.
In the political spectrum, there are members of Congress who decry this decision, even to call it a “gift to anti-American terrorist recruiters.” On the one hand, that may be true, but on the other, it also could be seen as a warning to those terrorists about what can happen here, particularly in Texas.
After a 40-plus year career in journalism, I’m jaded about this. I’ve turned down invitations from TDCJ to witness executions; I no longer want to see this.
Still, I feel that executions can be a deterrent to crime; it seems to me that kinder, gentler forms of rehabilitation have been ineffective as crime rates are rising and around half of federal lawbreakers end up back in jail.
I’m on the fence. I can’t say whether broadcasting this execution is a good idea, but I can say that as long as the death penalty is the law of the land, the so be it, and those not interested do not need to watch it, just as anyone can turn off the TV when “The Running Man” is on. (Plus, Ahnold aside, it’s really not a good movie.) We’re a republic, not a serfdom, and compulsory viewing of executions is not a thing.
Tony Farkas is editor of the San Jacinto News-Times and the Trinity County News-Standard. He can be reached at tony@polkcountypublishing.com.
