The US Military’s First Execution in 65 Years
Nidal Malik Hasan is scheduled to face a firing squad on December 3, potentially becoming the first person executed by the US military since 1961.
The US Army has scheduled Nidal Malik Hasan’s execution by firing squad for December 3 at Fort Hood, Texas, setting up a moment without a modern military precedent. If the sentence is carried out, Hasan would be the first person executed by the US armed forces since 1961 and the first put to death by a military firing squad since 1945.
Hasan, a former Army major and psychiatrist, was convicted in 2013 of killing 13 people and wounding more than 30 others during the November 5, 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, now renamed Fort Cavazos. Many of the victims were soldiers preparing to deploy. Hasan acknowledged that he was the shooter and said he acted to prevent American troops from fighting Muslims abroad.
The historical comparisons are precise but need context. The last US military execution was that of Private First Class John Bennett, who was hanged in 1961 after being convicted of rape and attempted murder while stationed in Austria. The last known military execution by firing squad was Private Eddie Slovik in January 1945. Slovik was executed for desertion during World War II, making him the only American soldier put to death for that offense since the Civil War.
Hasan’s case is different in both crime and legal history. A military jury convicted him of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder. His direct military appeals have largely run their course, and presidential approval was required before the sentence could be carried out. President Donald Trump approved the execution after a recommendation from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
A date, however, is not the same as certainty. Military law specialists say Hasan may seek habeas corpus review in civilian federal court. That process can examine constitutional issues, representation, trial procedure and the chosen method of execution. A judge could issue a stay, and litigation could extend well beyond December.
Supporters of the execution argue that the scale of the attack, Hasan’s admissions and the long wait endured by victims’ families make the case an unusually strong test of military capital punishment. They see the sentence as the lawful conclusion of a court-martial rather than a new policy invented for political effect.
Opponents argue that life imprisonment would protect the public without requiring the state to kill a prisoner who is already confined and partially paralyzed. They also question whether the firing squad offers justice, deterrence or spectacle. Even among survivors and relatives, views on capital punishment may differ, and public officials should not present one political position as the voice of every family.
The method itself will draw scrutiny. Firing squads have returned in several civilian jurisdictions after states struggled to obtain lethal-injection drugs and faced criticism over failed executions. Advocates call the method fast and less prone to prolonged chemical complications. Critics see it as visibly violent and warn about the psychological burden placed on the service members selected to carry it out.
The Army has not publicly described every operational detail, including how shooters would be selected, whether participation would be voluntary and what support would be available afterward. Those questions matter because a military execution relies on a chain of command and institutional obedience, not merely on a prison procedure.
Language should remain exact. Hasan’s guilt is established by a court judgment, not merely alleged. But describing his execution as inevitable would also be inaccurate while federal remedies remain available. The milestone will occur only if the sentence is actually carried out.
The case may influence the small number of other prisoners on military death row. Courts and defense lawyers will study the Army’s regulations, notice procedures and method. After a 65-year pause, any mistake would carry legal consequences far beyond one prisoner.
A final procedural point is easy to miss: presidential approval satisfies a special military-law requirement, but it does not erase judicial review. The administration can choose to seek the sentence aggressively while courts independently decide whether unresolved claims justify intervention. That division is a feature of the system, not evidence that the verdict is being ignored. It is also why official announcements should explain both the sentence and the remaining legal path instead of promising an outcome that a judge may still postpone.
What to watch next
Watch for a federal habeas petition, a request to stay the execution and additional Army guidance on the firing-squad protocol. December 3 is now the official date, but the final timetable still belongs partly to the courts.