This is not about the propriety of public execution.  If it has the possibility of deterrence, it might outweigh concern for intangibles, such as dignity in dying. The argument could be made that these intangibles, having no materiality, exist only within us. Don’t want to be offended? Look away. Want the sense of deserved revenge? Watch avidly.

The problem with public execution of Nidal Hasan is not propriety. It is that the livestream will end up in the next ISIS  recruiting poster.

Suppose you are an ISIS soldier who is about to make the ultimate personal statement, an act of terror. As with your predecessors,  there is no escape after the act. Your choice is suicide, by cop or judicial process. You  give your life to a cause, with the expectation that the more heinous your  act, the deeper your footprints in the sands of time.

How a terrorist dies is more than a minor detail to the spectacle of mass murder. It is the coda of a symphony, which can vary from subtle to bombast. In the warrens of terror, where lives are spent whispering, the brief moment when the terrorist emerges to commit climactic evil is followed by the fear of being buried alive, either in judicial process, incidental death, or in forgetfulness of the living.

Public execution is the capstone of Nidal Hassan’s historical record. Neither he, nor any terrorist, would prefer less. Barring escape, a terrorist wants to go out with a bang.  In this case, seven bangs. “You, too, can inspire such fear in the Americans that they must see him die.”

A livestream would make a helluva recruiting poster. A better  message to surround Nidal’s execution:

Silence.