Nearly two decades after surviving seven gunshot wounds in the 2009 Fort Hood massacre, Alonzo Lunsford stands at a careful moral threshold — endorsing the firing squad execution of Nidal Hasan as a matter of justice, while resisting the government's plan to broadcast that moment to a public audience. His position reflects a distinction that societies have long struggled to draw: the difference between accountability and spectacle, between bearing witness and consuming violence as entertainment. As the United States contemplates what would be its first public execution in nearly a century, one
Fort Hood survivor backs firing squad execution but opposes public livestream
13 unarmed US soldiers were fatally shot by Nidal Hasan in the 2009 Fort Hood attack; Lunsford survived being shot seven times.
I want him to know: 'Dude you failed, I'm still here'
Mark
So Lunsford supports the execution but not the livestream. That's a specific position. What's driving that distinction?
Mimi
He's lived with this for nearly two decades. He's thought about what justice looks like and what it doesn't. He sees the firing squad as proportional—he's explicit that other methods would be easier on Hasan, and he won't accept that. But a public broadcast feels different to him. It's about the message, the precedent, what it does to people watching.
Luke
But here's what I want to know: the Defense Secretary has already announced the livestream will happen. So when Lunsford says he opposes it, is that opposition actually going to matter? Or is this a survivor speaking into a void?
Mimi
That's fair. He acknowledges the tension himself—he says it's not about his personal belief. He's aware his preference might not carry the day. But he's also clear that survivors and families should be there in person. That's where his line is.
Mark
He mentions studying the Quran to counter Hasan's claims about religious justification. That seems important to his own reckoning with this.
Mimi
It does. He's not just opposing Hasan on principle. He's engaged with the actual texts Hasan claimed to follow. And he's forgiven him as a Christian. Those two things—forgiveness and accountability—sit together in his mind without contradiction.
Luke
The legal experts say court challenges could stop the livestream from happening at all. So we don't actually know if this execution will be public, or even if it will happen. That's a big caveat to the whole story.
Mimi
Absolutely. The Defense Secretary announced it, but the legal landscape is uncertain. Lunsford is speaking to a hypothetical that might never materialize.
Mark
What about the other survivors and families? Do we know what they think?
Luke
The article doesn't tell us. We have Lunsford's position, which is detailed and thoughtful, but we don't have a sense of whether other survivors agree with him or disagree.
Mimi
That's a real gap. Lunsford is one voice, and an articulate one, but he's not necessarily representative of everyone who was there or lost someone.
El Pulso
- Alonzo Lunsford, shot seven times in the 2009 Fort Hood attack, supports Hasan's execution by firing squad — calling lethal injection an unearned mercy for a man who targeted unarmed soldiers.
- The US Defense Secretary's announcement that the execution will be livestreamed has ignited immediate backlash, with senators from both parties invoking the language of authoritarianism and oppression.
- Legal experts warn that court challenges could block the livestream entirely, leaving the entire spectacle in constitutional limbo before it ever begins.
- Lunsford draws a firm personal line: survivors and victims' families deserve to witness the execution in person, but turning it into public viewing crosses into entertainment — and that, he says, is not justice.
- If the execution proceeds as announced, it would mark the first public execution in the United States in nearly a century and the first military execution in over sixty years — a precedent with no modern American parallel.
Nearly two decades after surviving seven gunshot wounds in the 2009 Fort Hood massacre, Alonzo Lunsford stands at a careful moral threshold — endorsing the firing squad execution of Nidal Hasan as a matter of justice, while resisting the government's plan to broadcast that moment to a public audience. His position reflects a distinction that societies have long struggled to draw: the difference between accountability and spectacle, between bearing witness and consuming violence as entertainment. As the United States contemplates what would be its first public execution in nearly a century, one survivor's measured voice reminds us that justice, to remain just, must be handled with gravity rather than broadcast.
Alonzo Lunsford was shot seven times on November 5, 2009, when Nidal Hasan opened fire inside a Fort Hood medical building, killing 13 unarmed soldiers. Nearly two decades later, Lunsford supports Hasan's execution by firing squad — but he draws a firm line at the government's plan to broadcast it live.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4, Lunsford explained that lethal injection or other conventional methods would amount to mercy Hasan did not earn. "That's doing him a favour," he said. Hasan attacked unarmed medical personnel in a place where weapons were forbidden — the firing squad, in Lunsford's view, is the proportionate response.
But Lunsford's support stops at spectacle. When the Defense Secretary announced a public livestream, Lunsford expressed concern about what such a broadcast would communicate, especially to younger viewers. "It's not something you should view for entertainment purposes," he told the BBC. He acknowledged the tension in his own position, but insisted the principle mattered beyond his personal feelings.
What he does want is to be in the room. He has rehearsed the moment: before the sentence is carried out, he wants Hasan to look him in the eye. "I want him to know: 'Dude you failed, I'm still here.'" It is not a declaration of triumph — it is a refusal to be erased.
Lunsford still carries specific memories from that day — including a pregnant woman who told Hasan she was expecting, and the last words he heard her say. He has also studied Islamic texts to counter Hasan's religious justifications, concluding they hold no scriptural support. A Christian, Lunsford says he has forgiven Hasan — but makes clear that forgiveness is not the same as mercy.
The announcement has drawn bipartisan political opposition, with one Democratic senator calling it "disgusting" and a Republican senator warning that public executions belong to oppressive regimes. Legal experts say court challenges could prevent the livestream from ever occurring. If it proceeds, it would be the first public execution in the United States in nearly a century — and Lunsford's position would remain unchanged: the execution should happen, but the watching should be reserved for those who have earned the right to bear witness.
Alonzo Lunsford was shot seven times on November 5, 2009, when Nidal Hasan, a US Army psychiatrist, opened fire in a medical building at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 unarmed soldiers. Nearly two decades later, Lunsford has made clear he supports Hasan's execution by firing squad—but he draws a firm line at the idea of the government broadcasting it live to the public.
In an interview with BBC Radio 4, Lunsford explained his reasoning with the precision of someone who has thought about this for years. He believes the firing squad is the appropriate method because other options—lethal injection, gas chamber, hanging—would amount to mercy. "That's doing him a favour," he said of lethal injection. Hasan, in Lunsford's view, forfeited any claim to a painless death when he chose to attack unarmed medical personnel in a place where weapons were not permitted. "He took the coward's way out," Lunsford said.
Yet Lunsford's support for the execution does not extend to turning it into a spectacle. When the US Defense Secretary announced that the public would be able to watch a livestream of the execution, Lunsford expressed concern about the message such a broadcast would send, particularly to younger viewers. He worried about the "effect" and the precedent it would establish. "It's not something you should view for entertainment purposes," he told the BBC. He acknowledged the tension in his own position: he opposes a public livestream as a matter of principle, "but it's not about my personal belief."
What he does support is the right of survivors and families of the victims to witness the execution in person. Lunsford intends to be there. He described a moment he has clearly rehearsed in his mind: before the firing squad carries out the sentence, he wants Hasan to look him in the eye. "I want him to know: 'Dude you failed, I'm still here,'" Lunsford said. It is a statement not of triumph but of survival—a refusal to be erased by violence.
Lunsford's account of the shooting itself carries the weight of someone who has lived with those moments for nearly two decades. He was in the medical building when Hasan stood up from his chair, jumped onto a counter, and began firing. Lunsford spotted an exit a few strides away and moved toward it, but Hasan shot him above the left eye first. As Lunsford crawled behind a desk, he was hit twice more in the back. He played dead. When Hasan moved on, Lunsford grabbed a wounded soldier and they made it outside—where Hasan caught up with them and shot him again. Seven times total.
One moment from that day still troubles him. A pregnant woman told Hasan she was expecting. "We heard a gunshot and the last thing that girl was saying was: 'Oh my god, my baby, my baby,'" Lunsford recalled. The specificity of that memory—the woman's words, the unborn child—speaks to what mass violence takes from a place.
Lunsford, who identifies as Christian, has said he has forgiven Hasan, though he has also studied Islamic texts to challenge Hasan's claims that his actions were religiously justified. "Everything that he said he was doing that was in the Quran is not supported by the Quran," Lunsford explained. Forgiveness, in his telling, is not the same as mercy or the absence of accountability.
The execution announcement has already drawn political opposition from both parties. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy called it "disgusting." Republican Senator Thom Tillis said public executions were the practice of "oppressive dictators" and should not happen in America. Legal experts have told the BBC that court challenges could prevent the livestream from ever occurring. If it does proceed, it would be the first public execution in the United States in nearly a century and the first military execution in more than 60 years. Whether that happens remains uncertain, but Lunsford's position is clear: the execution should go forward, but the watching should be limited to those who have earned the right to bear witness.
Citas Notables
That's doing him a favour. Gas chamber? Is doing him a favour.— Alonzo Lunsford, on why lethal injection and other methods would be too merciful for Hasan
It's not something you should view for entertainment purposes.— Alonzo Lunsford, on his concerns about a public livestream of the execution
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en BBC News ↗
Health & Medicine