The Patriot Post® · Leftists Celebrated Kirk’s Murder and Now Oppose a Terrorist’s Execution

Apparently, for the Left, watching a public execution of a mass murderer is a moral outrage. But when it’s Charlie Kirk being assassinated in front of a crowd, it’s a moment worth cheering.

That double standard has resurfaced in the debate over the planned execution of Nidal Malik Hasan, the convicted terrorist responsible for murdering 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009.

Nearly 17 years after one of the deadliest terrorist attacks on an American military base, Hasan is scheduled to face his punishment by firing squad. But it was the proposal to live stream his execution that sparked the most heated aspects of the debate, exposing the inconsistency of those who condemn publicized violence and continue to mock and glorify Kirk’s murder.

The contrast between the two couldn’t be more striking. Kirk was an innocent father of two, murdered in front of a crowd simply for cordially dialoguing with others about his political beliefs. Hasan, on the other hand, was convicted of deliberately slaughtering 13 innocent service members, along with an unborn child, and is facing a lawful sentence handed down by a military jury.

One was the victim of a horrific crime. The other was responsible for committing one.

The deadly attack unfolded on November 5, 2009, when Hasan, who was serving as an Army psychiatrist, entered Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Processing Center and opened fire on fellow service members preparing for deployment while reportedly shouting “Allahu Akbar.”

Investigators subsequently uncovered troubling warning signs, including Hasan’s communications with radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Questions emerged about why authorities hadn’t intervened before those concerns escalated into mass murder.

Hasan was eventually shot by responding police officers, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.

In 2013, a military jury convicted him of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder. He was sentenced to death.

Now, over a decade later, that sentence is scheduled to be carried out.

On December 3, former Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan will be executed by firing squad at Fort Hood, Texas — the same military installation where he gunned down innocent men and women in 2009.

Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that Hasan would face a military firing squad and that the execution would be publicly accessible.

Defending that decision, Hegseth explained, “We’re gonna make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public, because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.”

The public reaction was immediate, with some providing legitimate concerns about turning capital punishment into public entertainment, while supporters argued that broadcasting the execution would demonstrate accountability, discourage future terrorism, and offer closure to survivors and victims’ families.

One survivor, Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times, expressed his desire to witness Hasan’s final moments.

“I am not your victim anymore. I’m a survivor,” Lunsford declared.

It’s difficult to imagine what these families have endured, and their desire to witness justice is entirely understandable.

But there are also reasonable arguments against broadcasting someone’s death.

Public executions are associated with oppressive regimes, and streaming an execution risks turning the taking of a human life into a spectacle for public consumption. There’s also the very real concern that children and teenagers could easily stumble across the footage online, exposing them to something they should never have to witness.

We can support the death penalty for the most horrific crimes without turning the punishment into a public spectacle. Justice doesn’t require an audience of millions, and we don’t need to watch someone die to know they’re being held accountable for their actions.

But while there are reasonable arguments against making an execution public, not all of the outrage has been rooted in the same level of moral consistency. The pearl-clutching from the Left, who now expressed absolute horror at the idea of allowing the public to witness Nidal Hasan’s execution, is where the conversation shifted from legitimate concern to outright hypocrisy.

The loudest “moral” objections to broadcasting the execution came from some of the very people who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s horrific public assassination, took pleasure in watching the footage, and declared his murder an act of justice.

In Kirk’s case, they didn’t recoil at the sight of his life being taken. They didn’t object as the footage circulated across social media for days before much of it was finally removed. And they expressed no concern for the innocent children and teenagers who might stumble across the video, or the lasting impact of witnessing such a brutal act of violence.

They cheered. They laughed. They even reenacted the moment he was killed.

One South Carolina teacher reportedly declared, “America became greater today.”

Another educator reportedly wrote, “1 Nazi down.”

And a university administrator posted, “The world is better off without him in it.”

One of the most viral incidents involved a public school teacher at an anti-ICE protest who mocked Kirk’s assassination by pointing to her own neck and taunting counter-protesters, seemingly finding humor in his death.

These weren’t isolated expressions of political disagreement. They were examples of people celebrating the assassination of an innocent man simply because they despised his opinions.

The cruelty didn’t disappear after the initial headlines.

The mockery has continued since then, both online and in person, from jokes about Kirk’s death and celebrations of its anniversary to references to political opponents being “kirked.”

Just last week, a young woman told two representatives of Students for Life, “I hope you guys get shut down like Charlie Kirk did,” apparently believing that invoking a man’s assassination is now an acceptable way to shut down even the most basic disagreement.

Again, the hypocrisy among those participating is staggering.

A father of two was murdered in front of a crowd while engaging in political discussion, and the political Left treated the footage of his assassination as a moment of triumph — not one of tragedy.

Yet when the government proposed broadcasting the lawful execution of a convicted terrorist responsible for murdering 13 innocent people, those same voices declared that society had crossed a moral line from which there was no turning back.

In the end, those opposing the live stream got the outcome they wanted, though that hardly validated the double standards behind some of the objections. On October 15, President Donald Trump announced a reversal: “Many very good and well meaning people would rather not watch him die, through streaming, or through any other visual device. He will die, as scheduled, by firing squad, but this event will not be streamed. That said, the execution may be viewed in person by the immediate families of the victims, if they so choose. They deserve to witness JUSTICE!”

That seems like a reasonable compromise, as many points made in the debate raised valid concerns worth considering.

There is a legitimate argument against the live stream. There is also a legitimate argument for allowing the public to witness the consequences of heinous crimes.

What isn’t legitimate is celebrating the murder of someone whose politics you dislike while condemning the execution of someone convicted of slaughtering innocent Americans.