Army Sets First Firing Squad Execution Since 1945 for Fort Hood Shooter

On December 3, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan will face a firing squad at Fort Hood, Texas—the same military installation where, in November 2009, he opened fire in a medical processing center and killed thirteen people while wounding thirty-two others. The execution will mark the first time the U.S. Army has carried out a capital sentence by firing squad since 1945, ending a gap of more than eighty years in which this method of military execution lay dormant.

Hasan, a psychiatrist in the Army Medical Corps, carried out the shooting during a period of escalating personal crisis. He had been scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan, a prospect that intensified his internal conflict over his service and his religious convictions. On that November morning, he entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood and opened fire with a handgun, killing soldiers and civilian employees in what became one of the deadliest mass shootings on a U.S. military installation.

The decision to execute him by firing squad rather than by lethal injection—the method used in civilian capital cases across most of the country—reflects the military justice system's distinct legal framework. The Army retains firing squad as an authorized execution method under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, though it had not been employed in decades. The choice to revive this particular form of capital punishment for Hasan's case signals a significant moment in military law and raises questions about how the armed forces approach their most severe sentences.

Hasan was convicted and sentenced to death following a court-martial. His case moved through the military appeals process over many years, and the execution date now set represents the culmination of that legal journey. The decision to proceed with the sentence comes as the military justice system faces ongoing scrutiny over questions of fairness, the role of command influence in courts-martial, and the broader question of whether capital punishment remains appropriate in the modern armed forces.

The execution at Fort Hood carries symbolic weight beyond the legal mechanics. The location itself—where the crime occurred—means that the installation will witness both the crime and its ultimate legal consequence. For the families of those killed and wounded in 2009, the execution represents a form of closure, though the loss itself remains irreversible. For military leadership and policymakers, it represents a decision to employ a punishment method that had been abandoned for generations, one that will likely prompt renewed debate about the purposes and methods of military justice.

The revival of firing squad execution in the military context also occurs against a broader national backdrop in which capital punishment itself has become increasingly rare and contested. Most states have moved away from execution or narrowed its application; the federal government has carried out relatively few executions in recent decades. That the military would choose to resurrect this particular method, after such a long interval, suggests a deliberate decision rather than a default practice.

As the December date approaches, the execution is likely to draw attention from military law experts, death penalty opponents, and those concerned with the administration of military justice. The case will serve as a focal point for discussions about whether the armed forces should retain capital punishment at all, what methods are appropriate if they do, and how military courts should balance justice for victims with broader principles of proportionality and evolving standards of decency.