The proposed livestream of Nidal Hasan’s execution exposed a disturbing direction in American politics: state violence packaged for an audience, with cruelty promoted as evidence of strength. Donald Trump has since cancelled the broadcast, but the political questions raised by Pete Hegseth’s proposal remain: what happens when a government treats an execution as an opportunity for a shock-and-awe campaign, and how strongly will Australia challenge its closest ally?
Hasan’s murder of 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009 was an appalling crime. But turning a firing squad execution into online content – death porn – would make spectatorship part of the punishment, inviting audiences to consume a death as a demonstration of American power. The spectacle carries its own political message: the state can kill, command attention and call the combination justice.
For Anthony Albanese, the controversy also tested the substance of Australia’s opposition to the death penalty. His eventual condemnation of the proposed livestream as “completely abhorrent” was warranted, but it was issued not so strongly, and almost a week later.
Australia readily invokes human rights when criticising strategic rivals. Its credibility depends on applying those principles to allies with the same conviction. AUKUS, critical minerals agreements and the US–Australia alliance make that consistency diplomatically uncomfortable, which is precisely why it matters. Opposition to capital punishment cannot depend on the identity of the executioner.
