Kelly Demands Hegseth Removed Over Execution Plan

Left-leaning sources framed the planned livestream as a moral collapse and a cruelty spectacle, not deterrence or transparency. Guardian columnist Paul Daley called it "execution TV" and "state-sanctioned killing as entertainment," writing that the "supposedly greatest (or formerly greatest) democracy has arrived at an horrific new moral nadir" and that the decision "represents a significant lurch in the US from civilisation towards savagery." He urged Australian leaders—whose governments have long opposed capital punishment—to "condemn without qualification this depraved plan" and asked how far America must sink before Australia rethinks military dependence, including via AUKUS. Slate called the plan a "grotesque publicity stunt" that "reeks of a bygone era of American disgrace," noting that "releasing video of executions is most often associated with extremist militant groups like the Islamic State" and that Iran is the most prominent country still holding public executions. Citing Amnesty International's view that public executions "serve no legitimate purpose and only increase the cruel, inhuman and degrading nature of this punishment," Slate argued a livestream would be "the equivalent of the government producing and distributing a snuff film" designed "to appeal to viewers' sadistic impulses," that visible firing-squad violence is "exactly what Hegseth wants Americans to see," and that Hasan's Muslim background "almost certainly explains why Hegseth is so determined that he be the first." It recalled that public executions were abandoned after they became circus-like—and often white-supremacist—spectacles, and noted that Vice President J.D. Vance said he would not watch. The Hill presented Ossoff's remarks as the leading Democratic response, tying the announcement to Pentagon chaos rather than justice.