How to Kill the Terrorist
The Catholic Thing
By Brad Miner On December 3rd, Nidal Mailk Hasan will be executed by a firing squad. This will take place at the site of his crimes, the Ft. Hood U.S. Army base near Killeen, Texas, where, on November 5, 2009, Hasan, an Army doctor, fatally murdered 13 people and injured more than 30 others. There is no doubt about his guilt. From death row, he wrote to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi asking to be made a "citizen" of the caliphate, and he said he had renounced his U.S. citizenship. Baghdadi died in 2019 when he was cornered by U.S. operatives and self-detonated a suicide vest, killing himself and two of his own children. Dr. Nidal never married and has no children. As he attacked his victims, Hasan was heard to call out, "Allahu Akbar!" The Army and the Defense Department initially classified the shooting as "workplace violence." Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth says Hasan's execution will be livestreamed. (I use the word "Defense," not "War," because no statutory change has yet been made to the Department's name.) My own view is that, by Catholic tradition (and notwithstanding the catechetical tinkering of Pope Francis), the execution of Hasan is justified. After all: Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind. (Genesis 9:6) And: Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:3-4) No need to go on about that. Opinions differ about the morality and efficacy of capital punishment. Pope Francis, in his August 2018 revision of the Catechism (no. 2266/2267), referred to the death penalty as "inadmissible" because it's "an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." In some sense, that may be true. That the death penalty has had the Church's approval for two thousand years is indisputable. In any case, my concern is with the "broadcast" of the "event." I agree with the estimable Gavin Ashenden that the planned livestream "is undesirable and tragically tasteless." And Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Parolin (at an event honoring St. John Henry Newman) said: "It is truly incomprehensible that anyone would want to use this method in this day and age. . . . It is certainly unacceptable to turn death into a spectacle." I will add that it is impossible to know the consequences of broadcasting an execution, except to say they may well be volatile: among the American people and among jihadis. In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Thurgood Marshall argued that the American people, if they were fully informed about the process of execution, let alone if they were witnesses to one, would reject the death penalty. A livestream firing squad will test the "Marshall hypothesis" in ways he never imagined. It might even lead to the abolition of executions in the United States – a consequence I suspect "conservatives" such as Mr. Hegseth haven't considered. Hasan's situation is already well known to Islamic extremists, who cheered his murderous rage and have kept him in mind ever since. I'd be surprised if counterterrorism experts haven't been listening to renewed jihadi chatter about retaliation against the Great Satan, and you can be sure the livestream of Hasan's execution will be put to good use by ISIS, al-Qaeda, or Al-Shabaab, leading to the deaths of more innocent people. That justice should be done to Nidal Mailk Hasan is indisputable; that it needn't come with a chest-pounding, canine desire for publicity should be just as obvious. When U.S. Special Forces captured and killed Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011, Al-Qaeda vowed revenge on the American homeland. That never happened. But they did retaliate – on Pakistan: On May 13, 2011, two suicide bombers struck a Frontier Constabulary training ...