A new low
TheOrganist
Shipmate
in Hell
Just when you thought the Secretary of War couldn't sink any lower we get this. While one would like think that nobody will watch I fear the viewing figures will be shockingly high.
The result, if it happens, is that the USA will place itself in the company of Iran and Afghanistan as being one of only three countries that allows public execution - what an accolade.
Do any shippies agree that the televising may "help" to bring about further discussion of the whole execution issue? For myself, I think that is a red herring.
The result, if it happens, is that the USA will place itself in the company of Iran and Afghanistan as being one of only three countries that allows public execution - what an accolade.
Do any shippies agree that the televising may "help" to bring about further discussion of the whole execution issue? For myself, I think that is a red herring.
Comments
If you mix in the graphic fictional and written narrative executions, then I think we may already be emotionally desensitised to this stuff.
Obviously, Hegseth is doing this for the opposite reasons as Donahue, ie. to promote bloodlust(*), though if Donahue was right in '94, it could also have the opposite effect on some viewers. Conversely, if you're someone who agrees with the arguments Donahue made, it might be kind of awkward to explain why broadcasting an execution in 2026 will have such a baleful impact on society.
For myself, I'm opposed to the death-penalty, but for people who do believe that a murderer has put himself outside even the basic protection of a right to live, I'm not clear why broadcasting their last moments of agony should be any sort step too far.
(*) I'm pretty sure Hegseth is hoping that during the build-up to the current election season, some Democrat somewhere will oppose the livestream by saying something like "Nidal Hasan is a child of humanity and entitled to the same rights as the rest of us, and anyway maybe he had good reason to be mad about what the US military was doing."
I don't suppose the odious Hegseth sees himself as the Mouth of his equally odious master, but the relish which he seems to have for this wicked display of cruelty is sickening.
I suppose he might argue that public executions are part of God's Laws, as laid down in the Bible...
He wouldn't be wrong, would he.
Even the devil can quote scripture.
I've often thought that Marcion, and the later dualists, were onto something...
The death penalty was ended in practice in Canada in January 1963 and was abolished in two stages, in 1976 and 1999.
Something similar occurred in the UK - Wikipedia again:
The last executions in the United Kingdom were by hanging, and took place in 1964; capital punishment for murder was suspended in 1965 and finally abolished in 1969 (or 1973 in Northern Ireland). Although unused, the death penalty remained a legally defined punishment for certain offences such as treason until it was completely abolished in 1998;
And all you can do re: the death penalty is negotiate a different possibility.
I not too long ago listened to the Bible Project’s series on the 10 Commandments. When they were on Commandment 6/5 (depending on numbering system), they argued that “You shall not murder” is not an accurate translation. They said that Hebrew had a word for “murder” that is used elsewhere in the Torah, but that the word used in the Commandment clearly means “kill,” regardless of motive or reason.
They made a case that the Torah is itself presenting tension—it prescribes the death penalty in certain instances, while at the same time forbidding killing.
Part of their point is that it’s a mistake to view “the Law” as a rule or statute book. (Even translating Torah as “the Law” is misleading; it is better translated as “Instruction” or “Teaching.”) Rather, they argue, the idea behind the Torah is to invite meditation, debate and wrestling that can lead to discernment and, they would say, wisdom—yes, a penalty of death may be deserved, but what are the implications for individuals and a community that carry it out?
I’m no Hebrew scholar, so I have to rely on those who are when it comes to understanding OT Hebrew. But I found the argument convincing, not least because it seems to me that Jesus was squarely within that kind of understanding of the Torah.
As for Hegseth, like @Amanda B Reckondwyth, I can’t imagine more disgust.
It remains a matter of what one can negotiate with/from scripture. Clearly very different people are able to achieve very different results.
And traumatised.
By distancing the man from his status as an American, Hegseth seems to be suggesting that he is a non-American combatant.
On the other hand, recall the general reaction to the killing of Brian Thompson.
I think many news organisations self-censor video but it is not unusual for the moment of death to be broadcast. Shots fire, the police stand over the gunman in the immediate aftermath.
There seems something particularly callous about seeing a man die in a firing squad but many news reports leave little to the imagination when police face a gunman.
I meant the reaction to the death itself, not neccessariky any footage. I can't quite recall if there was film of Thompson's death, but there was a still image of him unexpectedly getting hit by the bullet, and I doubt that did much to dissuade anyone who was otherwise inclined from posting "Sympathies are out of network, scumbag" on social media, from doing so.
I'm guessing there is a considerable overlap between "people who enjoyed hearing about a greedy HMO exec getting gunned down in the street" and "people who'd enjoy seeing a mass murderer executed in a livestream".
Interesting observation.
I'm not on any of the social media platforms that host livestreaming video like Instagram or TikTok.
I've had a few conversations with people a bit younger than me, like in their mid-30s or so, who constantly see all our modern horrors livestreamed - the bombs falling on Gaza, ICE or police shootings, even the murder of Charlie Kirk. They mostly seem to feel that it's normal to see these videos - they aren't seeking them out, but the videos come across the feed and they don't turn them off. One or two have even implied to me that I'm hiding my head in the sand by avoiding the videos, that I'm in denial or pretending the atrocities aren't really happening.
I'm older than you by ten years, and I'm not bothered by gore content at all, BUT with the criterion that the victimized party was commiting or trying to commit violent acts themselves, or at the very least, engaged in activities that could foreseeable lead to a violent reaction from others.
Easy example: I'm not traumatized by the R. Budd Dwyer video, because Dwyer obviously knew the consequences of putting a gun in his mouth and pulling the trigger, and was, in fact, trying to bring about those exact results. OTOH, if the bullet had exited Dwyer's body and hit an elderly janitor sweeping the floor behind him, I don't think I could watch that.
Further to the issue of an alleged generational divide, I recall our beloved Edmonton Sun(patterned on the British tabloid of the same name) publishing at least one photo of a dead body, with full facial exposure and eyes wide open, on the front page, in the early 1980s. I believe it was the aftermath of a shootout, and the dead guy was assumed to be a criminal of some sort. So I think public tolerance for morbid media exploitation does go back a long way.
There will be plenty of children expected to watch who have no choice in the matter. Charlie Kirk himself said that children should watch public executions.
Someone in their mid-30s is a Millennial who came of age online amongst a whoooole lot of shocking footage freely available, including the live-recorded execution of Iraqi prisoners. The people posting it online were probably around your age or maybe a little younger. A lot of the people creating that "Wild West" internet were Gen Xers. I don't have TikTok and try to avoid short-form videos because they annoy me, so handily avoid any gore that way. But then I also grew up poor in a family that couldn't avoid video game consoles, and naturaly dislike any gore etc on screen.
This is not a new thing. The only thing that possibly is new is the ability to see it in real time.
You mean they'll have no choice because children can't make an informed decision, or because they will be somehow compelled to watch the video even if they don't want to?
I remember how shocking the film of the Rodney King beating was, because most white Americans had never seen horrifying police violence before. Now we get hundreds of worse videos every single day on the same device we make phone calls from.
I too had to watch the concentration camp films in school, and the Zapruder film of the assassination of JFK.
So IOW, we're lamenting the lost reign of the professional gatekeeping class?
Yes, this exactly what we're all after here. All 340 million of us.
Don't do it on this thread either. Or any other thread.
Dafyd Hell Host
The latter.
There is one option that is still available, though. Hasan can file for a habeas corpus in civilian federal court. This would not be a direct appeal of the conviction, but a challenge to the legality or constitutionality of the detention or sentence.
Of note, under the civilian federal laws, public executions are forbidden.
However, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, there is no such prohibition.